Just because Amy is psychotic, does evil things, is heartless and dangerous and vindictive, does that mean there is some larger commentary about all women within? She's one character in one story that one woman wrote. Why would anyone assume that she's some sort of stand-in for all women? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible as well?
I am not saying Amy is a stand-in for all women. The key is I am analyzing the movie in the context of the culture it was created within. The narrative and characters may be one thing on a micro level, contained within the film. But films are not made or released in a vacuum; they are a part of a culture. In that sense, every movie portrays a point of view, which causes its characters and ideas to mean more than just the micro of “Amy is not a stand-in for all women;” they become macro. They say something larger.
The depiction of Amy is just way too troubling and pushes way too many contemporary “buttons” to be ignored. This movie is coming out a time in American culture when feminism is struggling against a self-righteous wall of ignorance and male entitlement, a time when there is a disturbing epidemic of mistrust and shaming around rape victims. And this movie basically reaffirms what a lot of ignorant misogynists feel: women are irrational misandrists that want to manipulate and destroy men. In modern slang: “bitches be cray.” Not to mention the deeply disturbing little moments when Fincher sexualizes some of the violent moments (another deeply rooted problem in American culture). I mean, what in the fuck was with shooting a near close-up of Amy’s partially exposed ass as she’s crawling on the floor feigning sexual assault at the hands of Neil P? That was VERY messed up.
Perhaps a lot of those could have been alleviated and gone into a realm of actual COMMENTARY on these issues if there had been any development to Amy and why she is doing what she’s doing; some insight into how a male-dominated culture might have shaped her into a monster. But there’s nothing there; she’s just a whackjob. And even then that would still be a real stretch.
I don't disagree with your larger point about micro/macro. Sometimes I think art is unfairly criticized or dismissed because of it, though. Anyway, I should probably refrain from further comment until I actually see the movie, though. But I'll try to pick up this thread after I've seen it. It may be that I agree entirely. But I don't want to speak from ignorance. Only having read the book doesn't do me any good here.
Just because Amy is psychotic, does evil things, is heartless and dangerous and vindictive, does that mean there is some larger commentary about all women within? She's one character in one story that one woman wrote. Why would anyone assume that she's some sort of stand-in for all women? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible as well?
I am not saying Amy is a stand-in for all women. The key is I am analyzing the movie in the context of the culture it was created within. The narrative and characters may be one thing on a micro level, contained within the film. But films are not made or released in a vacuum; they are a part of a culture. In that sense, every movie portrays a point of view, which causes its characters and ideas to mean more than just the micro of “Amy is not a stand-in for all women;” they become macro. They say something larger.
The depiction of Amy is just way too troubling and pushes way too many contemporary “buttons” to be ignored. This movie is coming out a time in American culture when feminism is struggling against a self-righteous wall of ignorance and male entitlement, a time when there is a disturbing epidemic of mistrust and shaming around rape victims. And this movie basically reaffirms what a lot of ignorant misogynists feel: women are irrational misandrists that want to manipulate and destroy men. In modern slang: “bitches be cray.” Not to mention the deeply disturbing little moments when Fincher sexualizes some of the violent moments (another deeply rooted problem in American culture). I mean, what in the fuck was with shooting a near close-up of Amy’s partially exposed ass as she’s crawling on the floor feigning sexual assault at the hands of Neil P? That was VERY messed up.
Perhaps a lot of those could have been alleviated and gone into a realm of actual COMMENTARY on these issues if there had been any development to Amy and why she is doing what she’s doing; some insight into how a male-dominated culture might have shaped her into a monster. But there’s nothing there; she’s just a whackjob. And even then that would still be a real stretch.
I don't disagree with your larger point about micro/macro. Sometimes I think art is unfairly criticized or dismissed because of it, though. Anyway, I should probably refrain from further comment until I actually see the movie, though. But I'll try to pick up this thread after I've seen it. It may be that I agree entirely. But I don't want to speak from ignorance. Only having read the book doesn't do me any good here.
I should also say that I think the movie sucks on others levels too. I haven’t even mentioned the terrible, snarky dialogue or the facile commentary on marriage.
Just because Amy is psychotic, does evil things, is heartless and dangerous and vindictive, does that mean there is some larger commentary about all women within? She's one character in one story that one woman wrote. Why would anyone assume that she's some sort of stand-in for all women? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible as well?
I am not saying Amy is a stand-in for all women. The key is I am analyzing the movie in the context of the culture it was created within. The narrative and characters may be one thing on a micro level, contained within the film. But films are not made or released in a vacuum; they are a part of a culture. In that sense, every movie portrays a point of view, which causes its characters and ideas to mean more than just the micro of “Amy is not a stand-in for all women;” they become macro. They say something larger.
The depiction of Amy is just way too troubling and pushes way too many contemporary “buttons” to be ignored. This movie is coming out a time in American culture when feminism is struggling against a self-righteous wall of ignorance and male entitlement, a time when there is a disturbing epidemic of mistrust and shaming around rape victims. And this movie basically reaffirms what a lot of ignorant misogynists feel: women are irrational misandrists that want to manipulate and destroy men. In modern slang: “bitches be cray.” Not to mention the deeply disturbing little moments when Fincher sexualizes some of the violent moments (another deeply rooted problem in American culture). I mean, what in the fuck was with shooting a near close-up of Amy’s partially exposed ass as she’s crawling on the floor feigning sexual assault at the hands of Neil P? That was VERY messed up.
Perhaps a lot of those could have been alleviated and gone into a realm of actual COMMENTARY on these issues if there had been any development to Amy and why she is doing what she’s doing; some insight into how a male-dominated culture might have shaped her into a monster. But there’s nothing there; she’s just a whackjob. And even then that would still be a real stretch.
I don't disagree with your larger point about micro/macro. Sometimes I think art is unfairly criticized or dismissed because of it, though. Anyway, I should probably refrain from further comment until I actually see the movie, though. But I'll try to pick up this thread after I've seen it. It may be that I agree entirely. But I don't want to speak from ignorance. Only having read the book doesn't do me any good here.
I should also say that I think the movie sucks on others levels too. I haven’t even mentioned the terrible, snarky dialogue or the facile commentary on marriage.
I believe you about the dialogue. It's shite in the book, too.
To summarize: I don't like movies that aren't the genre I think they should be and if this movie had come out any other year, I probably could have liked it almost as much as the legion of similarly themed films that came out staring Michael Douglas.
To summarize: I don't like movies that aren't the genre I think they should be and if this movie had come out any other year, I probably could have liked it almost as much as the legion of similarly themed films that came out staring Michael Douglas.
Uhh...what? I don't understand how you could have possibly translated that essay into that.
To summarize: I don't like movies that aren't the genre I think they should be and if this movie had come out any other year, I probably could have liked it almost as much as the legion of similarly themed films that came out staring Michael Douglas.
Uhh...what? I don't understand how you could have possibly translated that essay into that.
But I do get frustrated when people try to apply a genre they want onto what a thing is. And I do honestly wonder if this movie had come out two years ago or two years from now, if it would be perceived differently. Maybe, maybe not. I won't know until I finally see the goddamn thing.
I just watched Riddik...what in gods name is with all the 'WTF is this???' movies Ive been watching lately..this was like Watching someone else play a video game..
