In part three, Christakis again brings up the critics who cried “epilepsy” in the crowed theater. Not to discount the effect films often have on epileptics, but instead on the ink that seems to be spilled more for these types of films rather than ‘action films’ causing the same effect. Why is that, because it is so much less expected in this type of film, so it is more obscene?
“Is it possible that we pay more attention to the health consequences of extreme movie scenes when they feature a father delivering a baby with blood smeared quasi-pornographically across his face than scenes with machine gun fire and sawn-off limbs? The histrionic media reaction seemed a tad skewed…To hear the movie industry talk, it’s a given that movie audiences prefer violence to displays of sex or, heaven forbid, love. But why do we put up with 79 minutes of a guy defusing a bomb and a mere 15 seconds for the key sex scene? Are car explosions really so fascinating? Can’t we all agree it’s more appealing to look at attractive human bodies than at weapons?”
Each of the four films, the last two being seen as one in this context, were all directed by different directors. The first was an indy film, given the budget and time constraints put on both the screenwriter to deliver a script before the writer’s strike and actors to deliver on time within an almost non-existent budget. The second film is more a dark, action film more so than any other, especially being directed by David Slade, who also directed “30 days of Night“. Chris Weiss directed the third installment, attempting to strike more of a balance between what might attract male audiences and what surely attracts female audiences. the series he said, “This series is about things women care about and has a woman at the center. So there are people who just stay outside it and mock it.” The variety in tone of each individual film allows them to speak to different audiences and, I think, does so successfully, getting better each time. One misstep however, is the choice for action over words. Mind you that words and dialogue usually, admittedly, do play out better in print than on film. But one of the things Meyer does well in her storyline is the dialogue between characters over action or violence. Meyer successfully builds up a scene where the reader expects violence as a result, but then constantly turns the tables, explaining that if violence were to really ensue, the story would ultimately end, after everyone involved is annihilated. This is something fans of the franchise lamented after seeing the films, but the argument in favor of this style of cinema is that a picture speaks a thousand words, furthermore, audiences would get bored if there wasn’t some physical action and dismemberment. After all, the target market isn’t just tweens and twi-moms, for full bang for their buck the movie execs need to at least somewhat appeal to the male demographic that gets dragged along to see these films, right?!
“Shouldn’t we be embracing — or at least not wholesale eviscerating — a blockbuster series that espouses non-violence? I have yet to read a review of Twilightthat recognizes the foundational truth of the story: that aggression is almost always the worst option, and that human life merits respect and forbearance. It’s easy to find this tacky or politically threatening; Stephenie Meyer has something to offend both ends of the ideological spectrum. But we needn’t be aligned with conservative religious teachings or lofty liberal pacifism to acknowledge the refreshing rarity of a successful movie franchise that rejects our great national love affair with violence.
Stephanie Meyer sure packs a hell of a punch without it. In a glorious sleight of hand, she makes sweet, gentle Bella the ultimate secret weapon against evil, protecting her whole clan with an uncanny feminine emotional power that’s kryptonite to a bunch of medieval vampire thugs. She becomes a true earth goddess, a Hestia of the vampire world, a warrior queen without the warfare. Take that, you hand-wringing scolds. Bella has the last laugh. As fantasies go, it’s a good one.”
As Christakis explains why do we as movie goers always seem to judge women’s films through the lens of reality, even when they are clearly not based in reality? Why are women always seen as the “gatekeepers of morality” and women’s cinema must show this while men sit back and enjoy The Hangover or any other similar film without worrying about its message threatening societies image of manhood, other than the idea that men are just big children. Furthermore, the sheer lack of true female-centric stories being produced that we as a society become excited when we are thrown just a morsel or shell of a story geared toward women. Mind you, there are some, but they are rarely made by the big production companies.
“Name a movie — any movie – that 1) features two or more women who are given names and 2) who talk to each other about something other than a man. If you think this is a ridiculous litmus test that most movies could easily pass, you’d be very wrong. Most fail. The Bechdel test is a simple way to measure the presence of women in American film. The movies that don’t meet this low bar are numerous: The Bourne Identity, Ocean’s 11, Lord of the Rings, The Shawshank Redemption, Mission Impossible, X-Men, the list goes on and on. Even movies aimed primarily at women or children, such as Up and When Harry Met Sally, often fail the test.”
Part three closes with a critical look at the film, “The girl with the dragon tattoo”, viewed not so much as a story for women and their fantasies but rather a story fitting men’s fantasies of lesbian sex, rape and a cynical and less-than-sympathetic male protagonist who the female lead is supposedly redeemed by. “The serial butchery of women is such a basic movie trope we barely notice it anymore.” It seems more acceptable in modern mainstream cinema to just this than show any poignantly intimate female-driven sexuality or intimacy on-screen less it be deemed silly or inappropriate. The studios seem stuck using the same old tropes in film that belittle and degrade women, show them as the sexual plaything of men, their mothers and caregivers, or crazy batshit bitches scorned. After all that we have been able to accomplish over time, why do we still silently allow these ideas to be perpetuated when the reality is much more diverse and our fantasies reflect that. I agree with Erika Christakis, when will it be acceptable to show more women-centric story lines in modern cinema?
livingtheamericandreamineurope.com 