Salt May Not, In Fact, Rock
As a reward to myself for getting the taxes mailed off, I stopped into Starbucks for an iced mocha and the latest Entertainment Weekly, which happened to be the summer movie preview. Huzzah, I thought, so many movies I want to see, listed in a convenient month-by-month manner! The first write-up is for the new Angelina Jolie spy thriller, Salt, which I had seen a few previews for and was looking forward to... until I read the article.
Long, overdone paragraphs made short: the role was written for a man, but switched to a woman! From the tone of the write-up, you'd think this is the most revolutionary thing EVER done. But, wait! There's more that had to be changed!
"But the process was trickier than just changing the hero's name and adding high heels."
Seriously: this character is on the run from the cops and federal agents, accused of being a double agent for the Russians, and you're worried about her heels? What will it take for writers to realize that when a character's running from something, there's absolutely no way she'd get very far if she's wearing heels?
But, wait! There's more stupid to come!
"'In the original script, there was a huge sequence where Edwin Salt saves his wife, who's in danger.' says [director Phillip] Noyce. 'And what we found was when Evelyn Salt saved her husband in the new script, it seemed to castrate his character a little...' In the end, Salt's husband... was made tough enough that he didn't need saving, thank you very much."
HORRORS: A MAN NEEDED SAVING. It's 2010, people: a man can stand to be rescued by his kick-ass superhero wife and not be worried about the state of his testicular fortitude. And, conversely, what they're saying is that had the character stayed male, the poor woman-wife would have still been in peril and needed saving. What about making her tough enough that she didn't need saving, thank you very much? This sort of thing makes me so mad: why are we still falling into traditional gender roles even as we make progress in subverting them? Is it because writers think audiences will be so intimidated by a strong female protagonist that their brains will explode if there's not a strong enough male figure to "balance" her out? That's bullshit, plain and simple. We've been presented with unequivocal strong male protagonists over and over again for years, but cultural mores have obviously progressed and changed. When we will get to see a movie where the heroine saves the hero, without needing any additional male help, and without hand-wringing over the state of the poor rescued man's state of mind?
So, in sum, my enthusiasm for Salt has considerably diminished. Maybe I'll watch art house movies all summer long instead.
Long, overdone paragraphs made short: the role was written for a man, but switched to a woman! From the tone of the write-up, you'd think this is the most revolutionary thing EVER done. But, wait! There's more that had to be changed!
"But the process was trickier than just changing the hero's name and adding high heels."
Seriously: this character is on the run from the cops and federal agents, accused of being a double agent for the Russians, and you're worried about her heels? What will it take for writers to realize that when a character's running from something, there's absolutely no way she'd get very far if she's wearing heels?
But, wait! There's more stupid to come!
"'In the original script, there was a huge sequence where Edwin Salt saves his wife, who's in danger.' says [director Phillip] Noyce. 'And what we found was when Evelyn Salt saved her husband in the new script, it seemed to castrate his character a little...' In the end, Salt's husband... was made tough enough that he didn't need saving, thank you very much."
HORRORS: A MAN NEEDED SAVING. It's 2010, people: a man can stand to be rescued by his kick-ass superhero wife and not be worried about the state of his testicular fortitude. And, conversely, what they're saying is that had the character stayed male, the poor woman-wife would have still been in peril and needed saving. What about making her tough enough that she didn't need saving, thank you very much? This sort of thing makes me so mad: why are we still falling into traditional gender roles even as we make progress in subverting them? Is it because writers think audiences will be so intimidated by a strong female protagonist that their brains will explode if there's not a strong enough male figure to "balance" her out? That's bullshit, plain and simple. We've been presented with unequivocal strong male protagonists over and over again for years, but cultural mores have obviously progressed and changed. When we will get to see a movie where the heroine saves the hero, without needing any additional male help, and without hand-wringing over the state of the poor rescued man's state of mind?
So, in sum, my enthusiasm for Salt has considerably diminished. Maybe I'll watch art house movies all summer long instead.