#1: So yeah, there was this guy, like, like, like Brad Pitt, and he had hair like her [pointing at me], and he was wearing this really tight pink dress shirt, like a woman's shirt and short short, like woman's shorts.
#2: Brad Pitt!
#1: Fucking faggot.
#2: Yeah, yeah. What did you do?
#1: It was ugly, man, fucking faggot!
Gender-normative privilege means never having to be viscerally relieved you look like you conform at a given moment.
Why?
I don't recall reading a movie review in which a male director's credentials are questioned in this manner. No one would expect a male director of a biopic to be a pilot or a fighter or a sea captain or whatever the subject of the film was about. Nair, whose films tend to be interesting failures, has taken on a pretty broad array of subjects in her films, and there's always this undertone in reviews of her work that's "why is the Indian woman making movies about things that aren't Indian?" which, you know, also makes me want to punch people in the face. Additionally, even assuming directors are required to stick to subjects of personal relevance to them (something that only seems to be asked of PoC and female directors), anyone who doesn't get why an Indian woman has a great deal to say about the lot of a woman in the Regency-era (Nair directed Vanity Fair a couple of years back), doesn't know the period. Or India.
Also, "she keeps a tidy screen"? Really? Nice to know Nair can handle cinematic housework. Or something. When we review men, this comment is usually "the film is workman-like" and that would have been an appropriate way to level the criticism that seems to be being made. Alas, no. Girls are tidy!
Additionally, a fascination with a sanitized and gleaming past should hardly be laid at Nair's doorstep in general or because she's a woman. It's a film-affliction in general, and one that I might argue is a valid creative choice in a film presumably meant to feel like it's about the future even as it's about the past.
The whole review is riddled with sexism both about Nair and Earhart (who is, historically, actually considered to be a mediocre pilot, although I don't know enough about the reality of planes of that period or flying them to say whether this assessment is fair -- luck was such a large part of the game back then), including the Times's assertion that the letter Earhart wrote to her husband before their wedding was remarkable. It read: "I shall not hold you to any medieval code of faithfulness to me nor shall I consider myself bound to you similarly. Please let us not interfere with the other’s work or play." OMG! A woman wanting something other than "traditional" fidelity! How can it be?!
The whole review is appalling.
(It is worth noting that her mother gave me pajamas for Christmas last year that three different people have remarked, apropos of thing, "OMG, did Jack steal those from the Doctor or what?")
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 09:03 pm (UTC)I know that the theory that vaccines sometimes cause autism is supported by only a very small minority of doctors, and that the vast majority of doctors and scientists oppose this theory as scientifically unsound. If there's consensus among doctors that some severe neurological side effects of vaccines are real (albeit rare), it may still be better in general for people to be vaccinated. That is, if the neurological risks are far lower than the risks of dying of the disease that a given vaccine protects against, even a scientifically-verified risk of neurological disease is not generally a good reason not to get vaccinated.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 09:09 pm (UTC)CDC website acknowledges this, but cites studies showing the risk from later flu vaccines to be really tiny: http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/about/qa/gbs.htm
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 09:22 pm (UTC)