Posts

Showing posts with the label sexuality

charades, and pretty lies

Image
I was going to start today's entry with a note I neglected yesterday: the first Grease does have one beat that the sequel doesn't--while Sandy changes for Danny and Michael changes for Stephanie, Stephanie doesn't change at all for Michael, but Danny does at least try to change for Sandy. He tries out for varsity sports, tries to clean up his image. It doesn't really take but Sandy's change covers the distance between them enough to make up for it. Stephanie, on the other hand, gets away with not even trying, yet Grease 2 almost feels like it wants us to see her as a feminist icon of a sort for the 60s setting, whereas Sandy was a good girl from the 50s until her makeover. I was going to argue, counter to the obvious point I made yesterday--that the message of both films is a bad one--that taking as singular instances, they're not so bad. If Sandy wants to change for Danny, that's on her. If Michael wants to change for Stephanie, that's on him. But, ...

when i was your age...

Image
Seriously though, while there may be enough moments to suggest that Troll 2 is a giant metaphor for Joshua's burgeoning sexuality , really the metaphor is far more obvious--this is Rosella Drudi and Claudio Fragasso (writer and director, respectively (and also husband and wife), though there is one name--Drake Floyd--credited with both) warning us that the Cold War is not really over. The wall wasn't down yet--that would happen from mid 1990 into 1992--and production happened before the official opening of the wall, November 1989. But, the signs were there. The Cold War was coming to an end, the Soviet Union was collapsing, and all those zombie movies screaming at us about communism (and/or consumerism) were going to have no good metaphors anymore. (And, no, I won't be spending three days with every bad movie this month--I've gotten more than enough recommendations on Facebook to spread them out a bit more. But Troll 2 is one of those that needs more time. Plus, we...

doesn't make me madonna

Image
Tess' McGill's obvious sins in Working Girl are being ambitious and knowing more than the men around her. In the 80s business environment, that is just not how it's supposed to be. Recently, Pamela Falk at CBS News reported that when Wonder Woman was named an honorary UN ambassador for women's issues, "some complain[ed] about her sexualized appearance." On CBS This Morning , Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins "addressed the criticism by some that a supposed feminist icon like Wonder Woman can't also wear a sexy, skimpy outfit." She said: I think that that's sexist. I think it's sexist to say you can't have both. I have to ask myself what I would apply to any other superhero. This is fantasy and it's not for anyone other than the person having the fantasy. I, as a little girl, like took a huge amount of delight in the idea that for my power and my ability to stop that bullion that playground, I could also look like Lynda Cart...

sexuality as a diversion tactic

Image
Caleb, what's your type? Of girl? No, salad dressing. Yeah, of girl. What's your type? You know what, don't even answer that. Let's say it's black chicks. Okay, that's your thing. For the sake of argument, that's your thing, okay? Why is that your thing? Because you did a detailed analysis of all racial types and you cross-referenced that analysis with a points-based system? No. You're just attracted to black chicks. A consequence of accumulated external stimuli that you probably didn't even register as they registered with you. Did you program her to like me, or not? I programmed her to be heterosexual, just like you were programmed to be heterosexual. Nobody programmed me to be straight. You decided to be straight? Please! Of course, you were programmed. By nature or nurture or both. And, to be honest, Caleb, you're starting to annoy me now because this is your insecurity talking. This is not your intellect. One could assume that Nathan...

programmed to be heterosexual

Image
Let us interrupt the argument regarding gender and sexuality for a for-instance: Two for-instances, I guess. A comparison—Ava putting on clothes, Ava putting on skin. With a brief follow-up to both. WARNING : there will be some naked female flesh in the skin scene. I considered making those images only visible if you click to see them, but I felt that would actually undermine what I am trying to say about that particular scene, especially when compared with the clothing scene earlier in the film. On to the first scene. For context, Ava tells Caleb to close his eyes and then she leaves to a closet, where she selects a dress. She picks out a dress. She models it in the mirror—but we do not see that mirror; we remain close on Ava. There is a very tactile and sensual thing going on here as Ava slides the dress up one arm… …before bringing it down over her body. And, we follow it down her body. Then, it is time for the stockings, and I am reminded of that bit in The Private...