Re: I'll take a stab at explaining...grammarcommieMarch 30 2011, 20:06:29 UTC
Okay, let me try this a different way. The costumes seem much more like something a man would like a woman to wear rather than something we would choose for ourselves. It doesn't make sense to me or a lot of other women that it would be preferable for to a 20 year old woman to think of herself as a whore held captive in a glitzy brothel to her reality. I understand she is mentally breaking down. I just don't see the choices made as being made with a female voice or mind.
I'm not saying that the character in and of himself is sexist. I'm saying that thematically when you combine it with the rest of the film it strikes me as a poor writing choice, if you really want to make an empowering choice. Again this also comes down to the characterization problem. We don't really see a lot of this bonding and taking control of their destiny outside of the shiny action sequences which are more music and visual then genuinely developing.
No, I'm not ignoring context, I think you're misunderstanding my objection. You're right, Babydoll didn't choose to become a pliant doll to get help. The objectionable part is that no one in authority CARES until she does. That's the problem. The message there is be helpless and people will help you.
And the problem with the bus driver saving the girl, isn't a problem with him. It's a problem with HER and her still needing someone else to save her -- Babydoll or the busdriver. When does Sweet Pea really start trying to save herself?
Re: I'll take a stab at explaining...nojhMarch 30 2011, 20:29:29 UTC
I'll agree that a man could come up with the costumes the women wore int he war storyline. I can also think of a few women who'd prefer to as well, when given the choice. And in all of the realities, the war storyline is probably the place Baby Doll has the most choice and freedom. There is also an argument to be made that in choosing, if she did choose, costumes that were similar to the ones in the brothel storyline, that she was subverting them for her own empowerment because there, she made the choice. It's another interpretation though.
I still don't think it should even be thought of as a poor writing choice. The presence of the man should not diminish the empowering that does happen just as the guide being a kangaroo wouldn't have. Yes it might have been more empowering if the guide had been a woman. Perhaps Dr. Gorski, although I'm not sure that would have worked. Additionally I propose that the action sequences were the actual bonding and taking control. Certainly from a literal perspective, they worked as a team, helped each other, completed missions, kicked ass, and took control. And they were also taking control and bonding in the club storyline as they formulated their plans and worked together to get the items they needed to escape. There was no sit down pow-wow of heartfelt discussion but I think the movie supported the idea that it happened rather well.
The tragic part is that a self absorbed man used his position and power to get an innocent girl lobotomized. The people in authority were doped into carrying out this by an evil man, and it wasn't until after the tragic event happened that they caught on and were able to catch and punish the perpetrator. There is no message that being helpless will get you help.
Sweet Pea is definitely not an empowering figure in that movie. I'll agree there. She is the redeemer for Baby Doll. She is being returned to her life after selflessly protecting her selfish sister for years, suffering, and finally being liberated. At least in the club storyline. In the asylum storyline for all we know she is a mass murdered Baby Doll mistakenly let loose. We have no real info there.
Re: I'll take a stab at explaining...emtigereyesMarch 31 2011, 04:46:42 UTC
First, I caveat my statement with the fact that I have not seen the movie, I had little to no interest in seeing it before, and after reading the various commentaries, definitely don't wish to see it. I spoke with someone who has seen the movie, and base the following comments on that, plus your initial post:
Text continues in white: All of the "girls kicking ass" is taking place in this poor girl's mind as she endures abuse at the hands of her "carers" up to the point of her lobotomy. It's escapism... though given what's happened and happening, not exactly surprising. She is in a situation where she has no way of saving herself, she is a complete and utter victim, so she mentally withdraws. She is not saved until she is a hollow shell of herself, and the bad guy wins. I imagine this is an interesting art film, but dream-within-a-dream "here's how I'd like to handle the opposition that I face" to hide from a horrific reality does not sound like a good night at the movies for me. I had a hard enough time with the similar cinema setup (though notably shorter) when it happened in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil"
Feel free to discuss this point with others here. However, I'm fighting nausea as is from contemplating this movie, so I will not reading anything further on this entry. It's safe to say this movie is not for me, "art film" or otherwise. The subject matter, to me, is too distasteful.
I'm not saying that the character in and of himself is sexist. I'm saying that thematically when you combine it with the rest of the film it strikes me as a poor writing choice, if you really want to make an empowering choice. Again this also comes down to the characterization problem. We don't really see a lot of this bonding and taking control of their destiny outside of the shiny action sequences which are more music and visual then genuinely developing.
No, I'm not ignoring context, I think you're misunderstanding my objection. You're right, Babydoll didn't choose to become a pliant doll to get help. The objectionable part is that no one in authority CARES until she does. That's the problem. The message there is be helpless and people will help you.
And the problem with the bus driver saving the girl, isn't a problem with him. It's a problem with HER and her still needing someone else to save her -- Babydoll or the busdriver. When does Sweet Pea really start trying to save herself?
Reply
I still don't think it should even be thought of as a poor writing choice. The presence of the man should not diminish the empowering that does happen just as the guide being a kangaroo wouldn't have. Yes it might have been more empowering if the guide had been a woman. Perhaps Dr. Gorski, although I'm not sure that would have worked. Additionally I propose that the action sequences were the actual bonding and taking control. Certainly from a literal perspective, they worked as a team, helped each other, completed missions, kicked ass, and took control. And they were also taking control and bonding in the club storyline as they formulated their plans and worked together to get the items they needed to escape. There was no sit down pow-wow of heartfelt discussion but I think the movie supported the idea that it happened rather well.
The tragic part is that a self absorbed man used his position and power to get an innocent girl lobotomized. The people in authority were doped into carrying out this by an evil man, and it wasn't until after the tragic event happened that they caught on and were able to catch and punish the perpetrator. There is no message that being helpless will get you help.
Sweet Pea is definitely not an empowering figure in that movie. I'll agree there. She is the redeemer for Baby Doll. She is being returned to her life after selflessly protecting her selfish sister for years, suffering, and finally being liberated. At least in the club storyline. In the asylum storyline for all we know she is a mass murdered Baby Doll mistakenly let loose. We have no real info there.
Reply
Text continues in white:
All of the "girls kicking ass" is taking place in this poor girl's mind as she endures abuse at the hands of her "carers" up to the point of her lobotomy. It's escapism... though given what's happened and happening, not exactly surprising. She is in a situation where she has no way of saving herself, she is a complete and utter victim, so she mentally withdraws. She is not saved until she is a hollow shell of herself, and the bad guy wins. I imagine this is an interesting art film, but dream-within-a-dream "here's how I'd like to handle the opposition that I face" to hide from a horrific reality does not sound like a good night at the movies for me. I had a hard enough time with the similar cinema setup (though notably shorter) when it happened in Terry Gilliam's "Brazil"
Feel free to discuss this point with others here. However, I'm fighting nausea as is from contemplating this movie, so I will not reading anything further on this entry. It's safe to say this movie is not for me, "art film" or otherwise. The subject matter, to me, is too distasteful.
Reply
Leave a comment