Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Old 02-20-13, 01:42 AM
  #276  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Never seen Guess Who's Coming to Dinner before, but naturally I'd heard of it. What I hadn't specifically heard, amidst all the comments about how important and groundbreaking it was, was that it's really, really good. I was very impressed with all the actors, the script, everything.

And I think I'll now name the scene where Katherine Hepburn sacks her colleague as one of the very best (as well as emotionally-resonant, decent, etc.) scenes in any film ever.

It really deserves much more written about it than I think I can handle, but since so much already has, I don't feel I'm short-changing it.


Grand Hotel is very good, too. Shortly after seeing it, I found an article that argued that few viewers could enjoy all the diverse actors' performances and empathise with all their characters - preferring one over the others. I liked them all - including Ms. Garbo, who is apparently much-maligned. What a great ensemble piece - and as a very minor aside, I despite comments to that effect, I previously had no personal idea that Joan Crawford was a) so attractive, and b) such a good actress! I wonder why Grand Hotel got no other nominations than Best Picture..?

I don't really remember if I've seen all of The King and I before, or just several of the numbers in various contexts. I suspect the latter. And I was very underwhelmed by the whole thing - amusing moments like elephants for Lincoln aside. The songs, I felt, were fairly terrible - many didn't appear to scan and rhyme or be in any way memorable. I can only recall one or two, despite having seen it in the last 36 hours - and one of those is "Getting to Know You" (which IS a good song), that I've heard dozens of times before for whatever reason. I was also... intrigued to finally see the highly bizarre play-within-a-play "Small House of Uncle Thomas," which someone told me recently was possibly the most offensive thing they'd ever seen on film...!



I'd avoided Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on principle. I like Alices - books, films, TV adaptations, criticism, songs - and was quite (irrationally) annoyed to read at the time that great liberties had been taken with the plot. (Actually, I think one my irritations was simply that they'd kept the "real" title, without doing the "real" story.) The trailers were also fairly uninspiring, if I remember rightly. However, it's really quite good. I wasn't particularly impressed with the Alice actress - although some parts of her bemused and puzzled performance may of course have been deliberate - and I didn't care much for Depp's Hatter or the Tweedles. That said, the new plot was actually quite well put together and interesting. Ultimately, with some mild guilt and sadness, I think I enjoyed it more than the Disney film, which I've held in quite high esteem until watching it this month and finding it fairly disappointing.
Old 02-20-13, 06:32 AM
  #277  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 5,981
Received 145 Likes on 100 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by ntnon
*I've been reading around Cinderella because it seems to take a lot of flak for being a bad influence on young girls - and I'm largely baffled why. Sexism seems to be a key charge leveled at it.
That charge has been leveled at pretty much every animated Disney film for the last few decades. The criticism stems from the Disney ideal that a young girl's only purpose in life should be to snag a man and live happily ever after. I don't think I posted it here but when I watched The Little Mermaid for this challenge I was completely shocked at how sexist the film was (I hadn't seen it for awhile): Ariel physically mutilates herself for the chance to hook up with some dude she doesn't know; she's told to seduce him (she's 16 lets remember) and he does fall for her physically (b/c she can't talk so it's not like he falls for her mind or personality) and then she leaves everything and everyone she's ever known again for someone she's known for 3 days. Yeah that's not the message I'd want to send to young girls.
Old 02-20-13, 07:09 AM
  #278  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Travis McClain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 7,758
Received 176 Likes on 116 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by ntnon
[Re: The Transformers: The Movie]...But that's high enough praise from a person whose opinions I've come to respect that I think I'll have to give it another go sometime.
That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. It's well worth remembering that my high esteem for that one has almost nothing to do with objectivity and instead my cult-like obsession with the movie dating back to its original marketing campaign. The instant I saw a commercial on TV for it, it became the very first movie I had to see.

Ultimately, I agree completely. I don't really care what people think of my tastes - if I did, I'd a) stay quiet more often, and b) swiftly dispose of some of my discs! - but I still feel... what's the best way to put it? maybe it's 'a little uneasy' when confronted with particularly good arguments for things that just pass me by completely.
There's always one hole card you can play in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence: You just don't "feel" the movie. That's fair. Film is art, and art has many objectives: To comment on events or people, to offer a new perspective, to represent a moment in time...but whatever its ambitions, it must engage the viewer/listener/reader.

I also try to subllimate my own tastes sometimes (particularly, now I've found this place and the Challenges, during Criterion and Oscar) in order to watch something(s) that I wouldn't deliberately seek out at any other time.

And, pleasantly, I've been fairly surprised at how much I've enjoyed things that wouldn't otherwise have been on my radar.
We've got us another convert! Woot! I readily admit: I stayed away from the Criterion Challenge the first year because I was intimidated by the very notion of it. It seemed way too elitist, like a club that was still taking new members but well after all the cliques were formed so it wouldn't be very welcoming. Instead, in large part thanks to the challenge we have on this forum with our truly wonderful community, I easily warmed up to it and have enjoyed delving into the more highbrow films far more than I had anticipated.

Originally Posted by ntnon
*I've been reading around Cinderella because it seems to take a lot of flak for being a bad influence on young girls - and I'm largely baffled why. Sexism seems to be a key charge leveled at it.
Originally Posted by lisadoris
That charge has been leveled at pretty much every animated Disney film for the last few decades. The criticism stems from the Disney ideal that a young girl's only purpose in life should be to snag a man and live happily ever after. I don't think I posted it here but when I watched The Little Mermaid for this challenge I was completely shocked at how sexist the film was (I hadn't seen it for awhile): Ariel physically mutilates herself for the chance to hook up with some dude she doesn't know; she's told to seduce him (she's 16 lets remember) and he does fall for her physically (b/c she can't talk so it's not like he falls for her mind or personality) and then she leaves everything and everyone she's ever known again for someone she's known for 3 days. Yeah that's not the message I'd want to send to young girls.
Yeah, the most sexist thing about most Disney Princesses is that their upward mobility and happiness all depend on finding a man to validate them. Great points about The Little Mermaid. I'm stunned how often I'm the only one in a conversation who remembers that Ariel is only 16 in that story.

What is often overlooked in these discussions, though, is how warped the message to boys is in those kinds of stories. I wrote a blog post about it last year, but the thesis argument is that it tells us that our only chance of mattering to a girl is to be so rich we can "rescue" her and so handsome that she'll be happy just being around us. Are we to believe there were no common boys living near Cinderella who couldn't have built a rewarding, happy relationship with her? She wasn't always a shut-in; while her father was still alive, she was treated well. Surely, there was some neighbor peasant boy who remembered playing with her as kids or something?

Originally Posted by ntnon
I'd avoided Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on principle. I like Alices - books, films, TV adaptations, criticism, songs - and was quite (irrationally) annoyed to read at the time that great liberties had been taken with the plot. (Actually, I think one my irritations was simply that they'd kept the "real" title, without doing the "real" story.) The trailers were also fairly uninspiring, if I remember rightly.
I totally agree about the title. It sent the message that they lacked enough confidence in what they'd done to give it its own title, hoping instead that their lazy re-use of the well-known title would engage even lazier audiences. Was it really that hard to put Alice Returns to Wonderland on a poster?

However, it's really quite good. I wasn't particularly impressed with the Alice actress - although some parts of her bemused and puzzled performance may of course have been deliberate - and I didn't care much for Depp's Hatter or the Tweedles.
I quite enjoyed Mia Wasikowska as Alice, actually. She was my favorite of the entire cast, with Stephen Fry voicing the Cheshire Cat a close second. I agree with you on Depp's Mad Hatter, though. I get that he played him as unstable and that worked, but what did not work was the very idea of the Mad Hatter being some kind of William Wallace military leader. Which leads me to...

That said, the new plot was actually quite well put together and interesting. Ultimately, with some mild guilt and sadness, I think I enjoyed it more than the Disney film, which I've held in quite high esteem until watching it this month and finding it fairly disappointing.
I liked it until the finale, when it devolved very poorly into a Narnia wannabe. The Jabberwocky originated with Lewis Carroll, certainly, but that entire finale act just felt like it was the one thing someone had in mind from the outset and didn't care how they got there as long as they could put that on the screen. It doesn't feel like Tim Burton storytelling to me. It feels more like a studio idea, and I can't help but think this originated with the same person or people who began aggressively pushing to expand Disney into more male-centric content with acquiring Marvel Comics.

Alice in Wonderland was set to begin shooting in March 2008 for a 2009 release, but was pushed back to 2010 on account of delays in production due to the writer's strike. Disney announced their purchase of Marvel 31 August 2009. It may just be coincidence, of course, but there's something about it that just feels forced into the rest of the film to me.
Old 02-20-13, 12:50 PM
  #279  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
The Man with the Golden Doujinshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Mister Peepers
Posts: 7,882
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I'm stunned how often I'm the only one in a conversation who remembers that Ariel is only 16 in that story.
Different cultures, such as the sea creature culture, may mature and have different lifespans. 16 for them might be normal or late for them to be married. You can't take American societal rules and apply them to inhuman monsters, which is what she is. Just because she has some human features, you can't ignore the fact that she is an animal/monster.

Some dudes like to have sex with horses and other animals. The guy that falls for her is the equivalent of a guy that's into sex with sheep or dolphins and found an animal/monster he wants to be with.

There may be issues with the movie but I believe people are going after the wrong ones.
Old 02-20-13, 12:58 PM
  #280  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,650
Received 283 Likes on 217 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by lisadoris
That charge has been leveled at pretty much every animated Disney film for the last few decades. The criticism stems from the Disney ideal that a young girl's only purpose in life should be to snag a man and live happily ever after. I don't think I posted it here but when I watched The Little Mermaid for this challenge I was completely shocked at how sexist the film was (I hadn't seen it for awhile): Ariel physically mutilates herself for the chance to hook up with some dude she doesn't know; she's told to seduce him (she's 16 lets remember) and he does fall for her physically (b/c she can't talk so it's not like he falls for her mind or personality) and then she leaves everything and everyone she's ever known again for someone she's known for 3 days. Yeah that's not the message I'd want to send to young girls.
The Japanese animated version of LITTLE MERMAID (ca. 1975) is much more emotional and intense than Disney's version. The ending is quite dramatic. She basically has to kill the boy she loves in order to save herself and enters his chamber on board the ship with a dagger to perform the job while he sleeps, but she can't bring herself to do it. She then throws herself off the ship as the dawn breaks knowing that she will turn to sea foam once the rays of the sun hit her as her little dolphin buddy and her mermaid sisters cry out for her. It's quite heart-wrenching.

I recently found my copy of Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales, which includes this story. I must re-read it.

Oh, and 16 was a perfectly acceptable age for a girl to marry in the time of "The Little Mermaid."
Old 02-20-13, 12:58 PM
  #281  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Travis McClain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 7,758
Received 176 Likes on 116 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by Mister Peepers
Different cultures, such as the sea creature culture, may mature and have different lifespans. 16 for them might be normal or late for them to be married. You can't take American societal rules and apply them to inhuman monsters, which is what she is. Just because she has some human features, you can't ignore the fact that she is an animal/monster.

Some dudes like to have sex with horses and other animals. The guy that falls for her is the equivalent of a guy that's into sex with sheep or dolphins and found an animal/monster he wants to be with.

There may be issues with the movie but I believe people are going after the wrong ones.
Hands down, the best argument on the Internet today. Well played, sir. Well played!
Old 02-20-13, 01:14 PM
  #282  
DVD Talk Legend
 
BobO'Link's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 10,489
Received 667 Likes on 484 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by ntnon
...(Minor aside: How many other films have intermission music built into their runtime? Monty Python and the Holy Grail is one, and several have breaks, but was it at all common for others have musical interludes - and "Exit Music"...?)
That's called the "Roadshow Theatrical Release" format. It was fairly common in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. A "Roadshow" release typically placed a ten to fifteen minute intermission between the two halves of the film with the first half frequently longer than the second half. Those films were almost always longer as well, running 2-4 hours or more including the intermission.

There have been several released to DVD in that format. I believe these had DVD releases in that format (don't hold me to this list as I'm typing at work without access to my library to know 100% for sure - please correct any that did not get this treatment):

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Great Race
Cleopatra
The Sound of Music
Ben Hur
Ten Commandments
Around the World in 80 Days
Spartacus
Paint Your Wagon
The Fall of the Roman Empire
Gone With the Wind

Here's a link to a wikipedia article about that format.

Last edited by BobO'Link; 02-20-13 at 01:58 PM.
Old 02-20-13, 07:12 PM
  #283  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 5,981
Received 145 Likes on 100 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
Oh, and 16 was a perfectly acceptable age for a girl to marry in the time of "The Little Mermaid."
You and Mister Peepers are correct and I totally understand that 16 was deemed the age of consent for the time this story takes place. My issue is that Ariel acted like and was treated like a child by the other characters in the film. The film seems to go out of its way to frame Ariel as a child which is why the required seduction seemed odd. If Ariel had managed any maturity or been treated like an adult by anyone other than the guy she was trying to bait, it wouldn't be an issue.

Switching gears a bit, I watched A Soldier's Story the other day and man do I love that film. Adolph Ceaser was amazing in this film and I would have voted for him over Ngor from The Killing Fields. The scene where Waters discusses his service in WWI is breathtaking and the fact that Jewison filmed it as a oner and focused on Ceaser's reflection in the mirror was just perfect. When I finished watching Story I went to see what beat it out for Best Picture and it was Amadeus, another film that I am quite fond of. I thought about the discussion from earlier in this thread about how difficult it is to compare different films. After thinking about it a bit more I realized how similar these two films actually are. I'm only going to discuss broad plot points that you can glean from reading the back of the DVD case so I won't use spoilers.

In Amadeus, Salieri, due to his inability to come to grips with his own mediocrity, decides to destroy Mozart who he believes God favors. In trying to destroy Mozart, Salieri ends up destroying himself.
In A Solider's Story, Waters, due to self-hate produced by racism, decides to destroy CJ who he deems a detriment to the advancement of the race. In trying to destroy CJ, Waters ends up destroying himself and takes a bunch of folks with him to boot.
This is one of the few times where I've been happy that writer changed the ending as the play ends on a much more somber note than the film.
Old 02-20-13, 11:12 PM
  #284  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Travis McClain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 7,758
Received 176 Likes on 116 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

I let the checklist decide for me to go with The Incredibles tonight. I've seen it before, but this was my first time viewing it on Blu-ray. From my Letterboxd diary:
Spoiler:
This is my third recorded viewing of The Incredibles, having previously seen it during its original theatrical run, then on DVD and now on Blu-ray Disc. It's possible I saw it a second time on DVD during the time before I began tracking at-home viewings but I can't say that such a viewing stands out in my mind.

Regardless, what I've found is that I enjoyed the film more tonight than in either of those previous viewings - which is saying something because I really enjoyed it then! We talk about The Incredibles as a comic book/superhero movie and it certainly is that, but tonight I was more dazzled by the spy-fi aspects - particularly the obvious homages to Ken Adam's iconic production design work on the James Bond series, particularly Dr. No and You Only Live Twice. I found myself just staring at the screen, thinking of how many whole frames would be worthy of displaying all on their own.

Tonight's viewing was in the context of this year's DVD Talk Academy Awards Challenge. In addition to being named BEST ANIMATED FEATURE, The Incredibles also won SOUND EDITING and was nominated for SOUND MIXING and WRITING (Original Screenplay). I used my admittedly outdated surround sound system tonight and had to make no conscious effort to pay attention to the audio.

Not only were the sound effects terrific, but even just the placement of dialog really helped create a sense of environment. Just listen to Bob trying to take his clandestine orders from Mirage, with Helen calling to him from elsewhere in the house, or either of the scenes at Edna's place. There's also Michael Giacchino's lively score, consciously in the classic John Barry mold but original and fresh instead of generic and recycled. The music is nicely interwoven with the dialog and sound effects to create a rich listening experience.

In short, The Incredibles Blu-ray Disc is top-shelf a/v reference material and a whole lot of fun, to boot!

The Incredibles was re-ranked on my Flickchart to #90/1482

The Incredibles
77th Academy Awards (2004)
(W) ANIMATED FEATURE FILM -- Brad Bird
(W) SOUND EDITING -- Michael Silvers and Randy Thom
(N) SOUND MIXING -- Randy Thom, Gary A. Rizzo and Doc Kane
(N) WRITING (Original Screenplay) -- Written by Brad Bird
Old 02-20-13, 11:46 PM
  #285  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by lisadoris
That charge has been leveled at pretty much every animated Disney film for the last few decades.
Yes, I know. But Cinderella seems to get the most flak - and I can't quite work out why (specifically).

Originally Posted by lisadoris
The criticism stems from the Disney ideal that a young girl's only purpose in life should be to snag a man and live happily ever after.
I get that, and as I was never a young girl I shouldn't really comment too much (although invariably I will)... but that's not really the main part of the plot. And if that's a criticism as far as the intentions of the female characters, is it not as offensive that the male characters aren't even present for the most part...? The Beast doesn't have a name (I forgot to listen out for whether Cinderella's Prince has a first name), and Charming does NOTHING. Cinderella just wants to dance. Belle loves her father. Neither set out to 'snag a man', they just wind up having a man fall for them.

Originally Posted by lisadoris
I don't think I posted it here but when I watched The Little Mermaid for this challenge I was completely shocked at how sexist the film was (I hadn't seen it for awhile): Ariel physically mutilates herself for the chance to hook up with some dude she doesn't know; she's told to seduce him (she's 16 lets remember) and he does fall for her physically (b/c she can't talk so it's not like he falls for her mind or personality) and then she leaves everything and everyone she's ever known again for someone she's known for 3 days.
Yes, I've not seen that for years (and I'll wait until it comes out in the fall before getting it), but it didn't register at the time quite how terrible/hilarious/outrageous the 'necessary' mutilation/submission (legs, voice) were.

Originally Posted by lisadoris
Yeah that's not the message I'd want to send to young girls.
But isn't that part of the point that's missed by the criticism? Children don't get the message that the critics and theorists see. Children see a dance and a dress and a talking mouse. Children see a mermaid and a castle and a talking teapot. I know some eminent people say that it's all internalised and causes unforeseen problems later in life, but...

Also, why pick on Disney - presumably it's just the trite "cartoons are for kids" line that causes 'think of the children!' hysteria. Most (many, at least) films that feature central romances conflate the timeline into what essentially boils down to love at first sight. Isn't it a worse message to see a REAL person commit their life to someone they don't know than a cartoon? And at least a Prince might be able to support you...! Physical attraction is almost the ONLY (initial) attraction that films (and many stories in all mediums) acknowledge, too - and that's not necessarily wholly inaccurate, however worrying, sad and problematic that might be.

Obviously they're not not sexist - but surely that's more because of the time they were made (and the simplistic and even-older tales they were based on) than anything else. Children may be more likely to watch a Disney film than another one, but children will take random lessons from films regardless of what's there!

(The Little Mermaid does seem like a potentially bigger culprit than Cinderella, however.)
Old 02-21-13, 12:09 AM
  #286  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
There's always one hole card you can play in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence: You just don't "feel" the movie. That's fair. Film is art, and art has many objectives: To comment on events or people, to offer a new perspective, to represent a moment in time...but whatever its ambitions, it must engage the viewer/listener/reader.
True, that's a great argument to make to the 'smart people' who understand that film is art. Now, how do I explain to the gutter-folk why I don't like Will Ferrell...?!

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
We've got us another convert! Woot! I readily admit: I stayed away from the Criterion Challenge the first year because I was intimidated by the very notion of it. It seemed way too elitist, like a club that was still taking new members but well after all the cliques were formed so it wouldn't be very welcoming. Instead, in large part thanks to the challenge we have on this forum with our truly wonderful community, I easily warmed up to it and have enjoyed delving into the more highbrow films far more than I had anticipated.
As much as the snob-elite crowd (and their films) baffle and confuse me I do try very hard to educate myself, so I've wound up with several Criterion/Eclipse films purchased during sales (and/or because the titles were "lowbrow" and exciting enough for me to really want them!), so there was really no contest in my wanting to take part there. But then, I'm weird...

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
Yeah, the most sexist thing about most Disney Princesses is that their upward mobility and happiness all depend on finding a man to validate them.
But it doesn't! They manage to already be happy even in the face of ghastly personal circumstances - happy enough to sing to birds and inanimate objects, at least! The most damning criticism (that I tend to agree with, at least) is that they are caricatures. And OF COURSE they're caricatures - they're cartoon representations of fairytale/morality story fictional characters placed into a relatively short and time-compressed film setting. What about that could reasonably allow for great character development - even if they weren't largely marketed towards families and children...?

And ANYTHING can be criticised in just/almost as strong terms. Beauty and the Beast, Tangled and Brave are generally held up as featuring more reasonable, semi-feminist, better female characters. But Belle manages to tread a fine line between judgng by appearances and being wilfully naive. You could even read bestiality into that story, if you were so inclined. Rapunzel is arguably very "girly", and (necessarily) obsessed with her hair. Even Merida is very judgemental about the appearances of her suitors (albeit that is subverted by a couple of them at the end, which was a good touch), and is not a very highly developed personality...

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
What is often overlooked in these discussions, though, is how warped the message to boys is in those kinds of stories.
Yes, quite.

Although "boys don't watch Princess movies". Studies have shown this - although they've also strongly suggested that it's peer-pressure and fear of peer opinions that feed this sweeping statement.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I wrote a blog post about it last year, but the thesis argument is that it tells us that our only chance of mattering to a girl is to be so rich we can "rescue" her and so handsome that she'll be happy just being around us. Are we to believe there were no common boys living near Cinderella who couldn't have built a rewarding, happy relationship with her? She wasn't always a shut-in; while her father was still alive, she was treated well. Surely, there was some neighbor peasant boy who remembered playing with her as kids or something?
Maybe she was also secretly in France, in the same village as Belle...?! The male characters - legitimately, to some extent, given the target audience and source material (and the sources original intentions) - are essentially background characters who are literal plot points rather than people, though. Which may or may not make it any better! What amused me was to consider that while The Beast doesn't get a name, not only does "Belle's Father" (who could have sat quite happily with that title), but Belle's Father's HORSE...!
Old 02-21-13, 12:24 AM
  #287  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

On Alice... (2010):

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I totally agree about the title. It sent the message that they lacked enough confidence in what they'd done to give it its own title, hoping instead that their lazy re-use of the well-known title would engage even lazier audiences. Was it really that hard to put Alice Returns to Wonderland on a poster?
Yes, quite. Particularly since "Return to Wonderland" is a good title, as well as more accurately conveying the plot.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I quite enjoyed Mia Wasikowska as Alice, actually. She was my favorite of the entire cast, with Stephen Fry voicing the Cheshire Cat a close second.
Stephen Fry is great, I agree. I find myself left cold by a large number of young actors and actresses, and I've yet to really introspect enough to decide if it's jealousy (I could do that as well/better), annoyance with 'modern' methods of acting/ability or actually that the standards for young actors have degraded somewhat over time. Because I certainly find that many films from forty-plus years ago seemed to coach a much higher caliber of acting from their young casts. Amidst the wooden stilted phonetically-learned dialogue, of course!

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I agree with you on Depp's Mad Hatter, though. I get that he played him as unstable and that worked, but what did not work was the very idea of the Mad Hatter being some kind of William Wallace military leader.
And particularly, for me, the attempt to make him more sympathetic, with a back-story (odd and unnecessary). His instability also handily switched on and off at just the right times, too..

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I liked it until the finale, when it devolved very poorly into a Narnia wannabe. The Jabberwocky originated with Lewis Carroll, certainly, but that entire finale act just felt like it was the one thing someone had in mind from the outset and didn't care how they got there as long as they could put that on the screen. It doesn't feel like Tim Burton storytelling to me. It feels more like a studio idea...
Yes, the in-Wonderland ending was fairly rubbish (and I didn't think the effects were that great, either). It was also sub-par Narnia film, rather than Narnia books (or brilliant BBC TV mini).

What was particularly awkward was the toying with ideas of predestination and possible futures, only to ignore them. And not just the theories and ideas, but the character-stated thrust of the film: that Alice isn't going to do what's expected of her just because it's expected of her.

Except that she then does exactly that for exactly that reason. Which somewhat took the edge off the actual non-conformist, daringly-out-of-time-forward-looking ending. (Which was good, but about as unexpected as someone having their head ordered off.)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
...I can't help but think this originated with the same person or people who began aggressively pushing to expand Disney into more male-centric content with acquiring Marvel Comics.

Alice in Wonderland was set to begin shooting in March 2008 for a 2009 release, but was pushed back to 2010 on account of delays in production due to the writer's strike. Disney announced their purchase of Marvel 31 August 2009. It may just be coincidence, of course, but there's something about it that just feels forced into the rest of the film to me.
Mm. That's an interesting thought. Not one I think I can really endorse, but it's certainly an intriguing thought!
Old 02-21-13, 12:28 AM
  #288  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by BobO'Link
That's called the "Roadshow Theatrical Release" format. It was fairly common in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s. A "Roadshow" release typically placed a ten to fifteen minute intermission between the two halves of the film with the first half frequently longer than the second half. Those films were almost always longer as well, running 2-4 hours or more including the intermission.
Huh. Thanks! I feel sure I must have peripherally known about that, now that you mention it, so that's interesting to read.

Originally Posted by BobO'Link
There have been several released to DVD in that format. I believe these had DVD releases in that format (don't hold me to this list as I'm typing at work without access to my library to know 100% for sure - please correct any that did not get this treatment):

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Great Race
Cleopatra
The Sound of Music
Ben Hur
Ten Commandments
Around the World in 80 Days
Spartacus
Paint Your Wagon
The Fall of the Roman Empire
Gone With the Wind
Sound of Music certainly has - noticed that today, and was quite surprised.

What purpose does it serve for a DVD release, I wonder...? If it was - if I understand correctly - a(n alternate) release, and not per se THE original format, then it's surely not done out of any desire to present the films as originally intended. Perhaps it's a completist thing - including the break allows for both Roadshow and (sort of) not-Roadshow releases to be out there, excising it would not.
Old 02-21-13, 01:46 AM
  #289  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
davidh777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Home of 2013 NFL champion Seahawks
Posts: 52,811
Received 1,047 Likes on 863 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
Well, I finally saw a Best Picture winner in this challenge, one of the few in this category I'd never seen before, CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981), also the first movie from the 1980s I've seen for this challenge. So now I've seen at least one movie from each of the decades from the 1920s to the 1980s. I still have to do the '90s and the 2010s.

There's a reason I've avoided CHARIOTS OF FIRE for this long. Two guys in England in the early 1920s like to run and decide to compete in the 1924 Olympics. I'm sorry, but that's pretty low-concept for me. I just don't care about the Olympics and I never have! At the end, an onscreen title declares that one of the runners, Eric Liddell, died in Occupied China at the end of WWII. It doesn't say HOW he died. Now, that's the story I wanted to see, since there are relatively few historical dramas made in the west about the war in China. A Scotsman working in China during the war, presumably as a missionary, is what intrigues me. I couldn't care less about his running.

P.S. I just looked up Eric Liddell on Wikipedia and the story of his heroism and self-sacrifice as a leader among the other western prisoners in a Japanese-run prison camp in China near the end of the war is heart-wrenching. That would make a great movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Liddell
I like Chariots of Fire and remember the Olympics as more of a backdrop than the main focus, especially with Liddell and his situation. It's been years since I've seen it, though. And I like sports movies.

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
In looking for something from the '90s that's eligible but also easily accessible in my collection, I came across UNDER SIEGE and looked it up and it is indeed eligible, having been nominated for Best Sound and Best Sound Effects. So I can watch a Steven Seagal movie for this challenge!
Old 02-21-13, 01:56 AM
  #290  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

When Worlds Collide and War of the Worlds - both enjoyable nonsense, with Collide being the stronger and more cohesive film. It also raised some interesting ethical questions (who should survive, and how many lies ought to be told to allow survival; should one be self-sacrificing and noble or cling to life, etc.) that I found to be reasonably well - if very briefly - mentioned. Both films won for Special Effects, two years apart. And neither had, I thought, particularly special effects...

Interesting fact: according to the Oscars.org database, both were unopposed in that category!


I was amused by the minor line pointing out that the Martians took special care to invade Britain because they recognised it's strategically important place in the world...!

Last edited by ntnon; 02-21-13 at 02:07 AM.
Old 02-21-13, 02:00 AM
  #291  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
Well, I finally saw a Best Picture winner in this challenge, one of the few in this category I'd never seen before, CHARIOTS OF FIRE (1981)... [t]here's a reason I've avoided CHARIOTS OF FIRE for this long. Two guys in England in the early 1920s like to run and decide to compete in the 1924 Olympics. I'm sorry, but that's pretty low-concept for me. I just don't care about the Olympics and I never have!
Hey, I have some advice to offer:

you really, really need to wean yourself off of your attachment to plot.




Incidentally, what did you think of it after seeing it...?
Old 02-21-13, 02:50 AM
  #292  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
LJG765's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 2,939
Received 74 Likes on 60 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by BobO'Link
There have been several released to DVD in that format. I believe these had DVD releases in that format (don't hold me to this list as I'm typing at work without access to my library to know 100% for sure - please correct any that did not get this treatment):

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
The Great Race
Cleopatra
The Sound of Music
Ben Hur
Ten Commandments
Around the World in 80 Days
Spartacus
Paint Your Wagon
The Fall of the Roman Empire
Gone With the Wind
While I've not been participating in this challenge officially (I've watched quite a few movies that would qualify funnily enough), I have been following this thread and thought I'd add in a couple movies that I know does this as well.

Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Dolittle (the 1967 one) both have the intermission as well.
Old 02-21-13, 05:53 AM
  #293  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,650
Received 283 Likes on 217 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by ntnon
True, that's a great argument to make to the 'smart people' who understand that film is art. Now, how do I explain to the gutter-folk why I don't like Will Ferrell...?!


As much as the snob-elite crowd (and their films) baffle and confuse me I do try very hard to educate myself, so I've wound up with several Criterion/Eclipse films purchased during sales (and/or because the titles were "lowbrow" and exciting enough for me to really want them!), so there was really no contest in my wanting to take part there. But then, I'm weird...


But it doesn't! They manage to already be happy even in the face of ghastly personal circumstances - happy enough to sing to birds and inanimate objects, at least! The most damning criticism (that I tend to agree with, at least) is that they are caricatures. And OF COURSE they're caricatures - they're cartoon representations of fairytale/morality story fictional characters placed into a relatively short and time-compressed film setting. What about that could reasonably allow for great character development - even if they weren't largely marketed towards families and children...?

And ANYTHING can be criticised in just/almost as strong terms. Beauty and the Beast, Tangled and Brave are generally held up as featuring more reasonable, semi-feminist, better female characters. But Belle manages to tread a fine line between judgng by appearances and being wilfully naive. You could even read bestiality into that story, if you were so inclined. Rapunzel is arguably very "girly", and (necessarily) obsessed with her hair. Even Merida is very judgemental about the appearances of her suitors (albeit that is subverted by a couple of them at the end, which was a good touch), and is not a very highly developed personality...


Yes, quite.

Although "boys don't watch Princess movies". Studies have shown this - although they've also strongly suggested that it's peer-pressure and fear of peer opinions that feed this sweeping statement.


Maybe she was also secretly in France, in the same village as Belle...?! The male characters - legitimately, to some extent, given the target audience and source material (and the sources original intentions) - are essentially background characters who are literal plot points rather than people, though. Which may or may not make it any better! What amused me was to consider that while The Beast doesn't get a name, not only does "Belle's Father" (who could have sat quite happily with that title), but Belle's Father's HORSE...!
Y'all need to see some Miyazaki heroines--and their male counterparts:
Nausicaa and Asbel (NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND), Sheeta and Pazu (CASTLE IN THE SKY), Kiki and Tombo (KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE), Fio and Marco (PORCO ROSSO), San and Ashitaka (PRINCESS MONONOKE).
Old 02-21-13, 06:13 AM
  #294  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Warren, MI
Posts: 5,981
Received 145 Likes on 100 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by ntnon
But isn't that part of the point that's missed by the criticism? Children don't get the message that the critics and theorists see. Children see a dance and a dress and a talking mouse. Children see a mermaid and a castle and a talking teapot. I know some eminent people say that it's all internalised and causes unforeseen problems later in life, but...

Also, why pick on Disney - presumably it's just the trite "cartoons are for kids" line that causes 'think of the children!' hysteria. Most (many, at least) films that feature central romances conflate the timeline into what essentially boils down to love at first sight. Isn't it a worse message to see a REAL person commit their life to someone they don't know than a cartoon? And at least a Prince might be able to support you...! Physical attraction is almost the ONLY (initial) attraction that films (and many stories in all mediums) acknowledge, too - and that's not necessarily wholly inaccurate, however worrying, sad and problematic that might be.

Obviously they're not not sexist - but surely that's more because of the time they were made (and the simplistic and even-older tales they were based on) than anything else. Children may be more likely to watch a Disney film than another one, but children will take random lessons from films regardless of what's there!

(The Little Mermaid does seem like a potentially bigger culprit than Cinderella, however.)
If it was just one movie then I would agree, children don't give a flying hoot and don't necessarily see what critics see (though children these days get a lot more than adults give them credit for). On the other hand, if the same or similar message is seen over and over again in every film and TV show and book, etc. then kids get the message. That is why your comment about films in the real world having the same or similar message is so true. The non-animated films are reinforcing the same message so it just piles on: most romantic comedies aren't a whole hell of a lot better.

As for why pick on Disney: a) a lot of their films have the same or similar messages and b) they're the big kid in the playground. You don't pick on the film company that releases one film, you pick on the big kid since they will, by shear volume, reach more folks. If you can get the big boys to change their tune then everyone will hopefully follow suit. This is one of the reasons why Brave was such a big deal. After decades of folks begging and pleading and screaming "please for the love of all that's holy give us a strong, intelligent, heroine who isn't boy hunting," we finally got one (though I'd argue Mulan got their first but she had to become a guy to do it). If you followed the criticism/praise of that film, a fair number of folks argued that Merida was a lesbian. Viewers simply couldn't comprehend a strong and intelligent straight heroine whose primary goal wasn't to get married. It was like really people? If the writers intended her to be lesbian, cool but there's absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that.

As for why Cinderella gets a lot of crap, you're correct, I don't think it's any worse than other Disney films. I think it might just have to do with how freaking annoying those mice are!
Old 02-21-13, 06:20 AM
  #295  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 12,650
Received 283 Likes on 217 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by ntnon
Hey, I have some advice to offer:






Incidentally, what did you think of it after seeing it...?
Very funny.

And that was my post-screening reaction.
Old 02-21-13, 08:27 AM
  #296  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Travis McClain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 7,758
Received 176 Likes on 116 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Cinderella is the poster child for the indoctrination debate because that's the one that most clearly links upward mobility with happiness and winning. She will remain imprisoned by her stepmother and stepsisters ad infinitum without being rescued by the handsome, rich prince - who, let's remember, marries to guarantee his claim on the throne and the wealth that goes with it. He does pick Cinderella because she interests him, but how jacked up is it that he rounds up and auditions every eligible woman in the entire kingdom, literally having his pick? It's a cattle call of women, and there's not a single woman who objects. Instead, we see each one tripping over herself trying to "win" not his devotion, but the wealth he represents. What do they possibly know about his personality or how compatible they'd be?

Cinderella herself sees him as her ticket out of misery, and there's no mistaking that. On top of that, there's the fairy godmother who has the power to help Cinderella hide how poor she is but not, apparently, the power to do anything remotely helpful in her daily life. "Yeah, I can transform your rags into a gown and a pumpkin into a carriage so you can put on airs for the night but don't even think about asking me to do anything to actually make your life better." Cinderella can't even fathom presenting herself as she is to the prince, because it's unthinkable that he would be interested in her as she is. She's selling a false image because she knows that's what will catch his eye. It's all offensively shallow.

I also reject the argument that kids don't see these things, on the basis that I saw these things when I was a kid. There's nothing unique or special about me or my upbringing. I didn't have a feminist theorist watching shows and movies with me, but I was astute. I grew up to become a feminist theorist because being astute led me to that. Kids who aren't encouraged to be astute may miss these things, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant. It means they're oblivious to what they're processing and internalizing. Of course gender role norms are deliberate in children's entertainment. It's so accepted and expected that most people don't even become aware of it until something comes along that defies it (like Brave).

Also: I like the mice. I also like the Ewoks. There. I said it.
Old 02-21-13, 09:48 AM
  #297  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
Y'all need to see some Miyazaki heroines--and their male counterparts:
Nausicaa and Asbel (NAUSICAA OF THE VALLEY OF THE WIND), Sheeta and Pazu (CASTLE IN THE SKY), Kiki and Tombo (KIKI'S DELIVERY SERVICE), Fio and Marco (PORCO ROSSO), San and Ashitaka (PRINCESS MONONOKE).
I do need to give Princess Mononoke another try, you're right. I didn't enjoy what I saw seven-or-eight years ago (twenty-odd minutes at a friends' house), but I know it deserves another try.


Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum
Very funny.

And that was my post-screening reaction.


I did wonder if it was, but I was curious if it had somehow exceeded your (seeming low) expectations despite there being a better film to be told.

Mainly because that's basically my opinion, and I'm trying to guess at whether it's worth my seeing it sooner rather than 'sometime'.
Old 02-21-13, 10:07 AM
  #298  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by lisadoris
If it was just one movie then I would agree, children don't give a flying hoot and don't necessarily see what critics see (though children these days get a lot more than adults give them credit for).
They certainly do - what I'm less sure about (i.e. don't agree with at all, despite the alleged skill of the claimants) is all this "internalising a subliminal message" stuff where the "message" is a pseudo-lit.crit. reading that often makes broad omissions and leaps in logic.

Originally Posted by lisadoris
On the other hand, if the same or similar message is seen over and over again in every film and TV show and book, etc. then kids get the message.
Absolutely. Or: "the 'problem' with Disney Princesses is if they're the only source of entertainment for a given child". Variety is good! But...

Originally Posted by lisadoris
That is why your comment about films in the real world having the same or similar message is so true. The non-animated films are reinforcing the same message so it just piles on: most romantic comedies aren't a whole hell of a lot better.
...many romantic comedies are a whole lot worse!

Originally Posted by lisadoris
As for why pick on Disney: a) a lot of their films have the same or similar messages and b) they're the big kid in the playground. You don't pick on the film company that releases one film, you pick on the big kid since they will, by shear volume, reach more folks. If you can get the big boys to change their tune then everyone will hopefully follow suit. This is one of the reasons why Brave was such a big deal. After decades of folks begging and pleading and screaming "please for the love of all that's holy give us a strong, intelligent, heroine who isn't boy hunting," we finally got one (though I'd argue Mulan got their first but she had to become a guy to do it). If you followed the criticism/praise of that film, a fair number of folks argued that Merida was a lesbian.
No, I somehow missed that! Fantastic...

(I have read many of the point/counterpoint debates/slanging matches over whether Buffy and Xena are great role models or horrendously sexist male fantasy figures. To which the politest answer is surely "no".)

Originally Posted by lisadoris
Viewers simply couldn't comprehend a strong and intelligent straight heroine whose primary goal wasn't to get married.
I suspect it was more the sportiness and adherence to 'male' pursuits, but that's still no better.

Originally Posted by lisadoris
It was like really people? If the writers intended her to be lesbian, cool but there's absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that.
Indeed, quite the opposite: the 'first chapters' novelisation finishes thus: "As for the rest, eventually I married, and in time, I became the Queen of DunBroch. But that's another story."

Originally Posted by lisadoris
As for why Cinderella gets a lot of crap, you're correct, I don't think it's any worse than other Disney films. I think it might just have to do with how freaking annoying those mice are!
I think it's because Snow White does nothing to attract her Prince, making Cinderella the first to allegedly seek one out. But she doesn't. She just wants to go to the dance...
Old 02-21-13, 10:39 AM
  #299  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
Cinderella is the poster child for the indoctrination debate because that's the one that most clearly links upward mobility with happiness and winning. She will remain imprisoned by her stepmother and stepsisters ad infinitum without being rescued by the handsome, rich prince..
She spends so long suffering in silence (oblivious? repressed?) that eventually she'd have snapped and killed them while they slept. Maybe.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
..who, let's remember, marries to guarantee his claim on the throne and the wealth that goes with it. He does pick Cinderella because she interests him, but how jacked up is it that he rounds up and auditions every eligible woman in the entire kingdom, literally having his pick?
HE doesn't, his old-fashioned Dad does. The Prince wants no part of it - he's clearly as disinterested/offended/annoyed by the whole thing as so many critics have been. He doesn't want to be there at all. Although he catches her eye immediately after she enters, making this a possibly gun-jumping thought, you can argue that neither of them really want to be in the situation at all. She's a bit baffled by it all, wary to enter; he's trying to escape from the parade of hopeful people (read: parents).

And this is surely another classic example of "another time, another set of norms" - the debutante's 'coming out' ball has fallen by the wayside, too. Which is arguably even worse - my daughter's (almost) old enough to marry: have at her!

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
It's a cattle call of women, and there's not a single woman who objects. Instead, we see each one tripping over herself trying to "win" not his devotion, but the wealth he represents. What do they possibly know about his personality or how compatible they'd be?
[url=http://entertainment.time.com/2013/02/20/the-bachelor-watch-sean-tells-all/]How far we've come...[/quote]
(I was about to make another sarcastic comment along the 'sure, blame Disney' lines, and then remembered who owns ABC...! Hm.)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
Cinderella herself sees him as her ticket out of misery, and there's no mistaking that.
I think there might be... I saw her just wanting to go to the ball. Nothing more or less. (Maybe I was distracted, though.) And she leaves him rather than clings to him - albeit because she has the sense to listen to the caveats put in place rather than by choice.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
On top of that, there's the fairy godmother who has the power to help Cinderella hide how poor she is but not, apparently, the power to do anything remotely helpful in her daily life.
Ah, the mysterious benefactor! Omnipresent in their observing, often reticent in actual assistance.

I will say, though, that - ignoring the mice for convenience's sake - I did not remember that she DOES make her OWN dress first. It's not just a magical wave helping out the poor girl who can't help herself, it's the magical wave that rights a specific injustice: the stepsister's clothes-tearing.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
"Yeah, I can transform your rags into a gown and a pumpkin into a carriage so you can put on airs for the night but don't even think about asking me to do anything to actually make your life better."
We can't say that. She fairly clearly DOESN'T ask for that. She's pure and good and all those things, which means that she stays (sort of) devoted to the woman her father married, despite their foul treatment of her. Is that a sexist power fantasy - the woman who will cook and clean however much you demean her; or is that a picture of saintliness, which behaviour becomes a karmic lesson in 'do good, and good things happen'? (With the obvious caveats that the 'good thing' being marriage might undermine the message...)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
Cinderella can't even fathom presenting herself as she is to the prince, because it's unthinkable that he would be interested in her as she is.
Eh. You dress up for fancy occasions. I think that's over-reaching. (Indeed, on the flip side, the fact that he sends out a man with a shoe to bring back WHOMEVER it fits clearly show him to (sort of) not be at all hung up on looks.)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
She's selling a false image because she knows that's what will catch his eye. It's all offensively shallow.
How is it a false image? Because in her daily life she wears drab cleaning clothes? Which she only wears because her stepmother is a b---h? Come on! She'd be wearing those clothes on a daily basis if her father were alive.

If cleaning and dressing is "selling a false image," then there's little reality anywhere in the world.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
I also reject the argument that kids don't see these things, on the basis that I saw these things when I was a kid.
I'm not saying they can't, and I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that first-and-foremost many small girls will see a frying pan and a horse; a teapot and a rose; a fish and a tail; a dress and a mouse. Not a sexist misogynistic fantasy filled with flighty, fainting, man-chasing shallowness. That's all!

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
There's nothing unique or special about me or my upbringing. I didn't have a feminist theorist watching shows and movies with me, but I was astute. I grew up to become a feminist theorist because being astute led me to that. Kids who aren't encouraged to be astute may miss these things, but that doesn't mean they're irrelevant.
Not irrelevant, not not-there, just not the be-all and end-all. I also reluctantly reject (in a limited, multi-caveated fashion) that it's JUST evil companies forcing these things (Princesses, pink things, dress-up and hair stuff; guns, tanks and trucks) on poor, unsuspecting children. It's the very essence of cause-and-effect.

(I know it's deviating a little from the point, but can I ask you, in your role as feminist theorist, what you think of Buffy and Xena..?)

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
It means they're oblivious to what they're processing and internalizing. Of course gender role norms are deliberate in children's entertainment. It's so accepted and expected that most people don't even become aware of it until something comes along that defies it (like Brave).
But deliberate isn't (wholly) inaccurate, it's over-simplified. Deliberate isn't (necessarily) unwanted. Deliberate isn't necessarily insidious and problematic. The whole backlash over 'real' women being 'allowed' to wear make-up (etc.) as being as much a form of equality and freedom of choice sort of plays into this.

And, again, how does one legitimately depict 'the past' without being accused of sexism, racism and stereotyping (et al.)? You wind up with weird anachronisms and people taking cheap shots about sexual orientation that undermine the enjoyment that, after all, the medium should be allowed to be about.

Originally Posted by MinLShaw
Also: I like the mice. I also like the Ewoks. There. I said it.
If only I'd read that first, and could have automatically dismissed everything you wrote..!!

I don't mind either, really. But I do hate the (non-)name "Gus Gus".
Old 02-21-13, 10:46 AM
  #300  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,486
Received 91 Likes on 51 Posts
Re: The 7th Annual Academy Award Movie Challenge (1/24 - 2/24)

On a lighter note, I hadn't realised that the nominated short "Paperman" was the one I saw before Wreck-It Ralph. I enjoyed it for the second time.

Although, of course, it features a male character being so enamored of someone just based on looks that he spends his whole day (surely losing his job in the process) to track her down for a date. And the universe/paper aeroplanes all help him, because paper likes to reinforce gender roles, or something...

The Donald Duck short "Toy Tinkers" (with Chip 'n' Dale) started almost identically to an earlier one I saw this month (I want to say the one that introduced them). Or at least that's the way I remember it. Which was interesting - maybe I'll check side-by-side sometime and see if they reused the cells, or if I'm completely misremembering. Not bad, not great.

All Quiet on the Western Front was a bit grim, though. I thought it did a reasonably good job of walking the line between heavy-handed condemnation and even-handed presentation - although the gung-ho pro-war characters were perhaps painted a little bit too mustache-twirling, however legitimately. Robert Osborne's Introduction says the experience turned the star into a conscientious objector and ruined his career until Olivia de Havilland rescued him from relative obscurity. Which added a certain something to watching the film.

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.