#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 03:46 pm (UTC)The report smacked so much of "it's a shame because she was beautiful and thus had potential (we really wouldn't have cared if she was fat and/or ugly)" to me.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 03:53 pm (UTC)just wondering
Date: 2009-10-23 03:58 pm (UTC)Re: just wondering
Date: 2009-10-23 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 03:59 pm (UTC)I am older than you, and I doubted that anyone younger than me would remember.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:12 pm (UTC)Sexist, racist, Western/American-centric and other stuff that get shat onto people who aren't "the default". Gross!
The script may have looked odd because dream state (in almost all people) happens in portions of the brain in which reading comprehension doesn't exist.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:21 pm (UTC)Quite a movie review... complaining about Hilary Swank having great teeth?
Soupy Sales! I don't remember him very much - my dad was a fan - but his sons were all over rock in the 80s.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:44 pm (UTC)(I'm still amazed every time I'm allowed to read afterelton, or afterellen, or pinknews, etc., shhh...)
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:46 pm (UTC)Sounds like a sort of intersection between Shakespeare and Samuel Beckett's Play. Weird, as you say.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:53 pm (UTC)As for .gay, I'm against on the basis that I can just see the expectation being that anything queer should be hemmed in to the .gay ghetto, leaving the rest of the Internet nice and tidy and safe for Regular Upstanding Citizens. Yeah, no thanks.
I was unaware of that Earhart letter. Scandalized newspapers aside, I dig the sentiment, and like that she's someone else one can point to when it comes to a history of people in differently negotiated relationships.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:12 pm (UTC)Me, too. And now I'm a little squicked because the sad fact of it is that I was lulled into that expectation because I'm heteronormative and white and middle class and INVISIBLE.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:21 pm (UTC)And that I love Mira Nair and don't think all of her films are 'interesting failures'. If you mean in the US box offices-- then yes, technically they are...but as films I find them to be very risky and enlightening.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-23 05:25 pm (UTC)