Two Aprils ago Lydia wrote basically the only appropriate response to Ruby Sparks, and the all kinds of awful, the really just awful, of making a movie about the grim reality that at least one person in the world thinks it's romantic to replace a viable leading female figure with an entirely fictionalized character written by the male lead, so as to eliminate any pesky human-ness she might have.
To spite its title, it's a thoughtful post.
I'm less thoughtful tonight, so I photoshopped my responses to the preview for About Time.
4 comments:
Agency is for closers.
I love these pictures, especially the middle one. Her expression.
So many things about the About Time preview make me feel crazy. Just take the sex thing, where the first time they did it was bad, and then presumably he practiced a lot until her version of their first time together was actually his hundredth time with her but her first time with him. Let's put aside for a second how very creepy and not-quite-consensual that is. We're also supposed to understand that they have super magic great steamy hot sex now because, what? Because great sex depends ONLY on things the male person knows and does. Because sex is a thing a man does to a woman. If he's very considerate, she might enjoy it. But it's definitely not something they do together.
I should probably switch to only reviewing previews on this blog.
p.s. I still haven't seen Ruby Sparks, but I have read that it's at least intended to be a bit of an exploration/critique of that no-female-agency thing. Although when the screenwriter said that she thinks the term manic pixie dream girl is sexist, my head exploded. How can it be sexist to name a sexist phenomenon? Is she also offended by the Bechdel test, because it is sexist? Because it stigmatizes female characters who have no names and/or only ever talk about men?
I meant the first one. The middle one doesn't have her in it.
These posters are amazing, and so exactly capture the only right way to feel about that trailer.
Post a Comment