It was late, nearing the end of my shift. I was tired and hormonal and working with some slightly incompetent people. It was dark outside and all I wanted was to go home and sleep. A customer stopped her van in the full service lane and I hurried out to meet her. She wanted the basics: a fill, windows washed, oil checked. I did those things the same way I always have, quickly, efficiently, effectively. She was low on oil and I advised her to buy a litre, which she did, but when it came down to it, I couldn't get the cap off. "This has never happened to me before." She didn't seem to mind, told me her husband would handle it later, gave me her change and left. Four dollars. The only tip I'd had all week, and the largest one to that point.
Not half an hour later, another woman came in. She'd bought some tie-down cords for the tarp on her truck, and they were tremendously over-packaged; caged in plastic with heavy duty cardboard and screws. The subtle approach, using the tip of my knife, failed, and I was reduced to tearing the cardboard off by force. That was the only thing I did for her, opening a package. She gave me a five dollar bill. In less than an hour I'd been given the equivalent of my hourly wage, in the pocket money that people give away.
I like my job, I do, but I'd like a raise even more.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
FEMINISM
Today I was perusing livejournal, as one does, when I came across something that was discussing feminism as it relates to the media, particularly the failings of some feminists fans to really grasp choice (as it pertains to how someone chooses to be a woman) and the difference between characters and the real women they represent. As a response, I formed up a bunch of thoughts and spilled them on the internet. I found myself unusually articulate, so I've decided to share them with you. Here is my first comment:
Feminism, for me, is about the freedom to make a choice without being pressured into preordained roles. If a woman wants to go into construction, or a man into nursing, hegemonic ideas about "femininity" and "masculinity" should not have any bearing on their ability to do so.
Conversely, should a woman want to stay and home and raise children while being supported by her husband, she she feel free to do so, as long as it is an educated decision. If she has made the effort to look at other systems and viewpoints with an open mind, and still determined, by herself, that a life at home (or whatever) is what she wants, she should be able to do so without malice from those who lead different lives.
However, fictional characters in popular media should be scrutinized, because they are the mirrors we use to look at and analyze ourselves, which we should always always do.
Someone responded:
I think the OP [original poster] was saying fictional characters should be scrutinized, but not as 'women' but as 'fictional characters who are potentially written by men'
For example, when I say most of David Eddings female characters seem to fit a "perfect mommy" role where they're smarter than the men but exist only to support and guide and wipe their noses so they can run off and save the world, I'm not going "Mothers are evil!" Or that it's Wrong for women to support the people they love, just that the way he has EVERY character fit in that role is a writing flaw on his part. Does he have mommy issues? Or a fetish?
Same way as when the Simpsons has yet another beating heart appear I go "Heh, Groening and his heart fetish."
To which I elaborated:
I did not mean to say that fictional characters should be scrutinized as women, I am sorry if it came off that way. I think they should be scrutinized in how they are women, and what that does and how it is received.
In further detail: When writers create fictional characters, they are generally trying to make them sympathetic, or at least someone with which the most people can relate. In that sense the writer must include a level of "realism". By examining a character (and the reactions of the audience to it, interactions with other characters, cliches, metaphors, symbols, etc.) we can see not only what the author considers "realistic" but also society as a whole, and it is this way that we can divine problem areas. By problem areas I mean the incidents and behaviours that maintain and reinforce inequalities (here in gender.)
To use your example: certainly one, or a few, women characters who are "perfect mother" are entirely acceptable, even desirable, and in no way are bad characters, just as real "perfect mothers" are not bad people. The problem exists if these are the only women we see, or the only mothers we see, and if they never question their roles.
Certainly the way a character is written can reveal truths about the individual writer, particularly when certain aspects reoccur as you point out, but not always and seldom reliably.
Lastly, I take issue with the implication that problematic depictions of gender stem only from the writings of men.
My new friend replied again, mentioning that because something was on TV does not make it real; just because House is someone's conception of a doctor does not mean it is OK to follow his medical advice. I responded thusly:
One person's conception of a woman (or a doctor) is not the issue. The issue is that when that person is a writer whose work is consumed by a great number of people, it means that others are accepting their interpretations, and I think that anything and everything should be examined (and yes, critiqued) before it is accepted.
I see your point re: reality vs. fiction, but the fact is the fabric of society is changed by the media just as the media is changed by society. Because the science on House is questionable and requires the suspension of disbelief does not mean it is unworthy of discussion. The pseudo-science on TV shows (such as CSI) has been shown to have an impact on real society; it is because of influences such as these that analysis of the things we consume is so important.
And that, ladies and gents and everyone neither and in between, is why I enjoyed my women's studies class. It has given me the guts to partake in fun discussions on the internet!
Feminism, for me, is about the freedom to make a choice without being pressured into preordained roles. If a woman wants to go into construction, or a man into nursing, hegemonic ideas about "femininity" and "masculinity" should not have any bearing on their ability to do so.
Conversely, should a woman want to stay and home and raise children while being supported by her husband, she she feel free to do so, as long as it is an educated decision. If she has made the effort to look at other systems and viewpoints with an open mind, and still determined, by herself, that a life at home (or whatever) is what she wants, she should be able to do so without malice from those who lead different lives.
However, fictional characters in popular media should be scrutinized, because they are the mirrors we use to look at and analyze ourselves, which we should always always do.
Someone responded:
I think the OP [original poster] was saying fictional characters should be scrutinized, but not as 'women' but as 'fictional characters who are potentially written by men'
For example, when I say most of David Eddings female characters seem to fit a "perfect mommy" role where they're smarter than the men but exist only to support and guide and wipe their noses so they can run off and save the world, I'm not going "Mothers are evil!" Or that it's Wrong for women to support the people they love, just that the way he has EVERY character fit in that role is a writing flaw on his part. Does he have mommy issues? Or a fetish?
Same way as when the Simpsons has yet another beating heart appear I go "Heh, Groening and his heart fetish."
To which I elaborated:
I did not mean to say that fictional characters should be scrutinized as women, I am sorry if it came off that way. I think they should be scrutinized in how they are women, and what that does and how it is received.
In further detail: When writers create fictional characters, they are generally trying to make them sympathetic, or at least someone with which the most people can relate. In that sense the writer must include a level of "realism". By examining a character (and the reactions of the audience to it, interactions with other characters, cliches, metaphors, symbols, etc.) we can see not only what the author considers "realistic" but also society as a whole, and it is this way that we can divine problem areas. By problem areas I mean the incidents and behaviours that maintain and reinforce inequalities (here in gender.)
To use your example: certainly one, or a few, women characters who are "perfect mother" are entirely acceptable, even desirable, and in no way are bad characters, just as real "perfect mothers" are not bad people. The problem exists if these are the only women we see, or the only mothers we see, and if they never question their roles.
Certainly the way a character is written can reveal truths about the individual writer, particularly when certain aspects reoccur as you point out, but not always and seldom reliably.
Lastly, I take issue with the implication that problematic depictions of gender stem only from the writings of men.
My new friend replied again, mentioning that because something was on TV does not make it real; just because House is someone's conception of a doctor does not mean it is OK to follow his medical advice. I responded thusly:
One person's conception of a woman (or a doctor) is not the issue. The issue is that when that person is a writer whose work is consumed by a great number of people, it means that others are accepting their interpretations, and I think that anything and everything should be examined (and yes, critiqued) before it is accepted.
I see your point re: reality vs. fiction, but the fact is the fabric of society is changed by the media just as the media is changed by society. Because the science on House is questionable and requires the suspension of disbelief does not mean it is unworthy of discussion. The pseudo-science on TV shows (such as CSI) has been shown to have an impact on real society; it is because of influences such as these that analysis of the things we consume is so important.
And that, ladies and gents and everyone neither and in between, is why I enjoyed my women's studies class. It has given me the guts to partake in fun discussions on the internet!
Monday, May 17, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sharpie, medium point.
My house is a wreck, but I've decided not to think about it. Which is difficult, because right in front of me is a table covered in dirty dishes and energy drink cans, and OH HEY, a sharpie! What should I draw? I just watched Battlestar Galactica, and that is awesome, so that's a plan.
Yup, I drew the Galactica on my forearm with a permanent marker. AND IT LOOKS RAD. I think this is a candidate for a first tattoo, honestly. I would have to field constant questions about it and be constantly out-nerding myself, but that is something I do on a regular basis anyway. I told my brother that I might get it permanent, which he interpreted as I would get this exact drawing done. Please. I would at least move it so it doesn't half-hug my wrist like that. I do like the ghetto quality of the squiggly lines though.
And that is a Dalek, from Dr Who, that I immediately drew on my other arm. Joelle recommended it, which is of course me-code for dared me. I like it a lot, but I don't think I like Dr Who enough to get it immortalised.
I've wanted a tattoo since forever (so maybe 6 years), but have never settled on a design or body part long enough to actually follow through. This has saved me from having a scenic Turkish landscape emblazoned on my back, so I suppose my wishy-washyness has its benefits.
Which brings me to my point. These pictures inaugurate the new, mostly weekly, segment called My Permanent (Marker) Tattoos.
The rules are simple, my friends. Each time I put one of these posts up, you simply comment with a request for what I should draw next time. The final image is of course my discretion, but I will attempt to choose suggestions randomly. The placement is also of my choosing, so expect to see a lot of left arm and leg action. I hope this sounds like fun, like you are winning something, and less like a super awkward family reunion where your aunt asks you if you want to see her 14 albums of cat pictures and you say yes because you do not want to offend her.
Speaking of cat pictures.
Here is Bernard! As you can see he is thrilled that I have a working camera.
That's not very flattering, here is a better one.
I realise the focus is on the bell, and not his face. It's a new camera, OK? We haven't got to know each other yet.
Yup, I drew the Galactica on my forearm with a permanent marker. AND IT LOOKS RAD. I think this is a candidate for a first tattoo, honestly. I would have to field constant questions about it and be constantly out-nerding myself, but that is something I do on a regular basis anyway. I told my brother that I might get it permanent, which he interpreted as I would get this exact drawing done. Please. I would at least move it so it doesn't half-hug my wrist like that. I do like the ghetto quality of the squiggly lines though.
And that is a Dalek, from Dr Who, that I immediately drew on my other arm. Joelle recommended it, which is of course me-code for dared me. I like it a lot, but I don't think I like Dr Who enough to get it immortalised.
I've wanted a tattoo since forever (so maybe 6 years), but have never settled on a design or body part long enough to actually follow through. This has saved me from having a scenic Turkish landscape emblazoned on my back, so I suppose my wishy-washyness has its benefits.
Which brings me to my point. These pictures inaugurate the new, mostly weekly, segment called My Permanent (Marker) Tattoos.
The rules are simple, my friends. Each time I put one of these posts up, you simply comment with a request for what I should draw next time. The final image is of course my discretion, but I will attempt to choose suggestions randomly. The placement is also of my choosing, so expect to see a lot of left arm and leg action. I hope this sounds like fun, like you are winning something, and less like a super awkward family reunion where your aunt asks you if you want to see her 14 albums of cat pictures and you say yes because you do not want to offend her.
Speaking of cat pictures.
Here is Bernard! As you can see he is thrilled that I have a working camera.
That's not very flattering, here is a better one.
I realise the focus is on the bell, and not his face. It's a new camera, OK? We haven't got to know each other yet.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
This is what happens when I am exposed to people.
M: I hate ironing.
Me: i hate....spiders
M: o.o Me too. Let's be friends.
Me: k
also i am drunk
i think you should know this if we are going to be friends
alcohoslfm.
M: Sigh. I'm trying to act surprised, but I got nothing.
I think you have a problem.
Me: i disagree
also the cat loves dirty jobs, apparently
also i coul stp when i wanted to
M: ...
Me: suhddup yo don own me
M: BUT IT'S YOUR BABY.
WHEN YOU GON' STAND UP AND BE A MAN.
Me: I'M GONNA SMACK YOU T' THE MOON IFN YEH DON' SHUTUP, WOMN. MAKE YERSEL USEFL AND GIT ME A SAMMICH.
M: ALL YOU WANT ARE SANDWICHES.
WHAT ABOUT MY NEEDS?
Me: YOUR NEEDS? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. YE'VE GOT THE KIDS, DON'T YAH?
M: HOW DO I KNOW THEY'RE ALL MINE?
I'M PRETTY SURE [myname] JR IS KOREAN OR SOMETHING.
Me: Y'ALL ARE CRAZY, I AIN'T BIRTHIN NO SPAWN. AND YAH SHUT ER MOUTH ABOOT JR, HE'S TAKIN OVER THE CONVIENCE STORE WHEN I DIE OR GO TO JAIL
M: YOU LOVE THAT CONVIENCE STORE MORE THAN ME.
I KNOW WHAT YOU DO WITH THE SLURPEE MACHINE WHEN I'M NOT THERE.
Me: THAT CONVIENCE STORE PAYS FOR YER FANCY CLOTHES. AND THE SLUSHEE MACHINE IS LESS FRIGID THAN YOO. I GOTTA GET SOME WARMTH AND UNDERSTANDIN SOMEWHAR.
M: IT ISN'T MY FAULT YOU HAD YOUR PUSSY SHOT OFF IN 'NAM.
Me: IT'S YOUR FAULT YOU LET IT RUIN OUR MARRIAGE! I CAN'T HELP IT IF YOU FIND ME REPULSIVE!
M: I JUST WANT YOU TO LOVE ME AGAIN.
Me: AND I JUST WISH YOU EVER LOVED ME. I KNOW ABOUT YOUR PIECES ON THE SIDE, DAMMIT.
M: *SOBS* SOMEONE NEEDS TO FULFILL MY NEEDS.
JUST LOVE ME LIKE I LOVE YOU.
Me: AND I CAN'T, CAN I. BECAUSE I AM BROKEN.
M: LET ME FIX YOU
Me: *SOBS*
M: *SOB* LET ME FIX YOU. *HUG*
And, scene.
Me: where's my sandwich?
Me: i hate....spiders
M: o.o Me too. Let's be friends.
Me: k
also i am drunk
i think you should know this if we are going to be friends
alcohoslfm.
M: Sigh. I'm trying to act surprised, but I got nothing.
I think you have a problem.
Me: i disagree
also the cat loves dirty jobs, apparently
also i coul stp when i wanted to
M: ...
Me: suhddup yo don own me
M: BUT IT'S YOUR BABY.
WHEN YOU GON' STAND UP AND BE A MAN.
Me: I'M GONNA SMACK YOU T' THE MOON IFN YEH DON' SHUTUP, WOMN. MAKE YERSEL USEFL AND GIT ME A SAMMICH.
M: ALL YOU WANT ARE SANDWICHES.
WHAT ABOUT MY NEEDS?
Me: YOUR NEEDS? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH. YE'VE GOT THE KIDS, DON'T YAH?
M: HOW DO I KNOW THEY'RE ALL MINE?
I'M PRETTY SURE [myname] JR IS KOREAN OR SOMETHING.
Me: Y'ALL ARE CRAZY, I AIN'T BIRTHIN NO SPAWN. AND YAH SHUT ER MOUTH ABOOT JR, HE'S TAKIN OVER THE CONVIENCE STORE WHEN I DIE OR GO TO JAIL
M: YOU LOVE THAT CONVIENCE STORE MORE THAN ME.
I KNOW WHAT YOU DO WITH THE SLURPEE MACHINE WHEN I'M NOT THERE.
Me: THAT CONVIENCE STORE PAYS FOR YER FANCY CLOTHES. AND THE SLUSHEE MACHINE IS LESS FRIGID THAN YOO. I GOTTA GET SOME WARMTH AND UNDERSTANDIN SOMEWHAR.
M: IT ISN'T MY FAULT YOU HAD YOUR PUSSY SHOT OFF IN 'NAM.
Me: IT'S YOUR FAULT YOU LET IT RUIN OUR MARRIAGE! I CAN'T HELP IT IF YOU FIND ME REPULSIVE!
M: I JUST WANT YOU TO LOVE ME AGAIN.
Me: AND I JUST WISH YOU EVER LOVED ME. I KNOW ABOUT YOUR PIECES ON THE SIDE, DAMMIT.
M: *SOBS* SOMEONE NEEDS TO FULFILL MY NEEDS.
JUST LOVE ME LIKE I LOVE YOU.
Me: AND I CAN'T, CAN I. BECAUSE I AM BROKEN.
M: LET ME FIX YOU
Me: *SOBS*
M: *SOB* LET ME FIX YOU. *HUG*
And, scene.
Me: where's my sandwich?
Monday, April 5, 2010
Books (a list from Joelle)
Here is a list of 100 books that the BBC estimated average people had only read 6 of. Bold the ones you have read and italicize the ones you are working on, then put a total at the end. Here's mine!
Friday, March 19, 2010
Oh, Canada.
I've never really been all too interested in politics, although I do my best to research the party platforms before I vote. I never vote Conservative. A confluence of news articles have cropped up in order to reassure me that this is wise (beyond the fact that Harper has family-first bigots high up in his government and himself doesn't believe in gay "marriage"-civil unions are fine).
Firstly, the close to home impacts of a Tory government.
In 1993, women in Alberta were paid 71% of what men earned. Today, they earn 66% (compared to a nationwide 74% average). These figures take into the account that men make up a much higher percentage in the workforce of the provinces main industries and tend to work longer hours. Indeed, Albertan women work longer hours than the national average, which should result in a smaller gap (but doesn't). The pay gap in post secondary graduates is also disheartening, with the highest inequality since the 80's, with female grads earning 67%. These gaps are present even in white collar jobs, suggesting a more systemic problem. Single mothers in this province experience a poverty rate of 24%, eight percent higher than the national average. Despite this all, Alberta remains the only place in Calgary that does not have a council or ministry devoted to women's issues, leaving us essentially without a voice.
Looking beyond gender issues, Alberta has been demonstrating a considerable lack of foresight in other areas. Tuition has increased 429% since 1991, and in February the provincial government cut $205 million from the advanced education and technology budget.
On a National scale, Canada ranks last in a list of 25 industrialised nations in terms of providing childcare and early education, and 23/27 in terms of family benefits. To put this in perspective, a few short years ago before Harper took power, Canada was seventh. To have us slide so low on these lists, putting us near the bottom of the industrialised world, demonstrates explicitly that the Conservative government does not concern itself with the future of this country.
On the international scale, Canada's Conservative government continues to pander to their sexist and racist voter base by refusing to include any sort of family planning in their G8 proposal. This extends to the exclusion of contraception. Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon says only this:
"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives"
This is ignorance of the highest degree. Women cannot be healthy without choice and the ability to protect themselves.
With all this in mind, I couldn't care less about the words in the National Anthem, particularly as the Tories seem to be using this debate as a smokescreen to disguise more pressing issues.
There is good news. The Canadian government, for all its reckless decision making, still listens to her people. Earlier this month, the office of Citizenship and Immigration minster and Calgary MP Jason Kenney removed all mention of gay rights and the decriminalisation of homosexuality from the new citizenship study guide. Pressure from public groups and opposition MP's have caused Kenney to reinstate the passages in the second printing. If concerned citizens can make a confirmed homophobe change his stance, if not his mind, surely we can combat the rest of the idiotic changes the conservative government has created, through action or inaction.
Further Reading:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/08/c7835.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/birth-control-wont-be-in-g8-plan-to-protect-mothers-tories-say/article1502796/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/abortion-not-part-of-maternal-health-plan-development-minister-says/article1472837/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-erode-gender-equality-womens-groups-say/article1477688/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mr-harper-maternal-health-isnt-very-healthy-without-a-choice/article1474941/
Firstly, the close to home impacts of a Tory government.
In 1993, women in Alberta were paid 71% of what men earned. Today, they earn 66% (compared to a nationwide 74% average). These figures take into the account that men make up a much higher percentage in the workforce of the provinces main industries and tend to work longer hours. Indeed, Albertan women work longer hours than the national average, which should result in a smaller gap (but doesn't). The pay gap in post secondary graduates is also disheartening, with the highest inequality since the 80's, with female grads earning 67%. These gaps are present even in white collar jobs, suggesting a more systemic problem. Single mothers in this province experience a poverty rate of 24%, eight percent higher than the national average. Despite this all, Alberta remains the only place in Calgary that does not have a council or ministry devoted to women's issues, leaving us essentially without a voice.
Looking beyond gender issues, Alberta has been demonstrating a considerable lack of foresight in other areas. Tuition has increased 429% since 1991, and in February the provincial government cut $205 million from the advanced education and technology budget.
On a National scale, Canada ranks last in a list of 25 industrialised nations in terms of providing childcare and early education, and 23/27 in terms of family benefits. To put this in perspective, a few short years ago before Harper took power, Canada was seventh. To have us slide so low on these lists, putting us near the bottom of the industrialised world, demonstrates explicitly that the Conservative government does not concern itself with the future of this country.
On the international scale, Canada's Conservative government continues to pander to their sexist and racist voter base by refusing to include any sort of family planning in their G8 proposal. This extends to the exclusion of contraception. Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon says only this:
"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives"
This is ignorance of the highest degree. Women cannot be healthy without choice and the ability to protect themselves.
With all this in mind, I couldn't care less about the words in the National Anthem, particularly as the Tories seem to be using this debate as a smokescreen to disguise more pressing issues.
There is good news. The Canadian government, for all its reckless decision making, still listens to her people. Earlier this month, the office of Citizenship and Immigration minster and Calgary MP Jason Kenney removed all mention of gay rights and the decriminalisation of homosexuality from the new citizenship study guide. Pressure from public groups and opposition MP's have caused Kenney to reinstate the passages in the second printing. If concerned citizens can make a confirmed homophobe change his stance, if not his mind, surely we can combat the rest of the idiotic changes the conservative government has created, through action or inaction.
Further Reading:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/March2010/08/c7835.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/birth-control-wont-be-in-g8-plan-to-protect-mothers-tories-say/article1502796/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/abortion-not-part-of-maternal-health-plan-development-minister-says/article1472837/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-erode-gender-equality-womens-groups-say/article1477688/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mr-harper-maternal-health-isnt-very-healthy-without-a-choice/article1474941/
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Bernard
So my brother and I, in a rather ill-advised period of delirium and enthusiasm, adopted a cat. And it took me a while, but I don't regret it at all. Of course, we have yet to actually tell our parents about this, so that will be a fun conversation. Owning a cat is a lot easier than a dog, and almost as rewarding. (That is not a slight, I am just more of a dog person in general, but we felt that a dog was less feasible and also larger.)
His name was originally Zojo, but we changed it to Bernard. He is a one year old freshly neutered cat who likes to eat houseplants at 2am, cuddle on his terms, and purrs like an asthmatic pug. He's great.
I only have a cheap ass camera, so the pictures are TERRIBLE, sorry.
His name was originally Zojo, but we changed it to Bernard. He is a one year old freshly neutered cat who likes to eat houseplants at 2am, cuddle on his terms, and purrs like an asthmatic pug. He's great.
I only have a cheap ass camera, so the pictures are TERRIBLE, sorry.
Monday, February 22, 2010
What, I don't even, WHAT, ugh How Nature you Crazy.
I'd read about this before, of course, but I guess it didn't really sink in how neat-o evolution can be. This thing doesn't have eyes, or ears, or frikken hind legs, but life will find a way.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Robot Unicorn Attack
I'm ccoking up something that should be pretty awesome, expect it in the next week or so. In the meantime play this game as much as you can, and let me know your high scores.
BEST GAME EVER
BEST GAME EVER
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Trailer Reviews
I just saw the trailer for Season of the Witch, and I will very likely not be watching it. First, the synopsis:
His faith broken by years of battle as a crusader, Behmen (Nicholas Cage) returns to central Europe to find his homeland decimated by the Black Plague. While searching for food and supplies at the Palace at Marburg, Behmen and his trusted companion Felson (Ron Perlman) are apprehended and ordered by the dying Cardinal to deliver a young peasant girl ¬believed to be the witch responsible for the Plague to a remote abbey where her powers can be destroyed. Behmen agrees to the assignment but only if the peasant girl is granted a fair trial. As he and five others set off on this dangerous journey, they realize with mounting dread that the cunning girl is no ordinary human, and that their mission will pit them against an evil that even in these dark times they never could have imagined.
It's wonderful that we aren't glorifying the crusades OH WAIT we totally are, because even though he's all faith-brokeny or whatever he's still the most bad-ass knight to ever kill a billion Turks and his badassedness is the basis for this movie. Second, I like that this movie basically rationalises the witch hunt. Thousands of women died because of the witch hunts in Europe at this time, and absolutely none of those deaths were justified. Accusations of witchcraft were generally levelled against practitioners of paganism (demonstrating the hegemony of the christian church at the time), particularly women, such as midwives and shaman-type advisers, who held status in their communities (women cannot hold power.) The only woman in the entire movie (certainly the entire trailer) is evil and powerful and we must strip her of her powers. Disregarding that fact that there's no way they wouldn't just kill her (because, y'know, we gotta have a movie. Just killing her right off the bat wouldn't be very entertaining) the movie implies that, again, woman + power = evil, and we must strip her power, not to mention scapegoating the ENTIRE PLAGUE on one woman. There are no other women to compare her against, "witches" or otherwise, so she is thus made to represent all women as a whole. From what I can tell, no one objects to her treatment, and she is kept in a little cage from 95% of the trailer. ZOMG! She is cunning! And extraordinary! Destroy!!!
The only redeeming aspect is the trailer features a couple seconds of Ron Perlman, and that is never a bad thing.
I also saw the trailer for The Red Baron. It has a cast of people I generally like, including Lena Headey, Til Schweiger, and Joseph Fiennes. That said, I feel a little weird about a movie whose point of view inclines the viewer to feel sympathetic towards the Axis. I realise, of course, that individuals are different than the whole, that situations are complex, there are two sides to every coin, etc. but I still find it uncomfortable, and that may prevent me from watching this movie. Plus, glorifying war is not my favourite thing to do, though the fight scenes look pretty badass and good action is an Achilles heel of mine.
Both trailers are available here.
Also, dear readers, do you like it when I review stuff? I think I will continue, when I have little else to say, unless of course you HATE IT and DISAGREE and in which case comment.
His faith broken by years of battle as a crusader, Behmen (Nicholas Cage) returns to central Europe to find his homeland decimated by the Black Plague. While searching for food and supplies at the Palace at Marburg, Behmen and his trusted companion Felson (Ron Perlman) are apprehended and ordered by the dying Cardinal to deliver a young peasant girl ¬believed to be the witch responsible for the Plague to a remote abbey where her powers can be destroyed. Behmen agrees to the assignment but only if the peasant girl is granted a fair trial. As he and five others set off on this dangerous journey, they realize with mounting dread that the cunning girl is no ordinary human, and that their mission will pit them against an evil that even in these dark times they never could have imagined.
It's wonderful that we aren't glorifying the crusades OH WAIT we totally are, because even though he's all faith-brokeny or whatever he's still the most bad-ass knight to ever kill a billion Turks and his badassedness is the basis for this movie. Second, I like that this movie basically rationalises the witch hunt. Thousands of women died because of the witch hunts in Europe at this time, and absolutely none of those deaths were justified. Accusations of witchcraft were generally levelled against practitioners of paganism (demonstrating the hegemony of the christian church at the time), particularly women, such as midwives and shaman-type advisers, who held status in their communities (women cannot hold power.) The only woman in the entire movie (certainly the entire trailer) is evil and powerful and we must strip her of her powers. Disregarding that fact that there's no way they wouldn't just kill her (because, y'know, we gotta have a movie. Just killing her right off the bat wouldn't be very entertaining) the movie implies that, again, woman + power = evil, and we must strip her power, not to mention scapegoating the ENTIRE PLAGUE on one woman. There are no other women to compare her against, "witches" or otherwise, so she is thus made to represent all women as a whole. From what I can tell, no one objects to her treatment, and she is kept in a little cage from 95% of the trailer. ZOMG! She is cunning! And extraordinary! Destroy!!!
The only redeeming aspect is the trailer features a couple seconds of Ron Perlman, and that is never a bad thing.
I also saw the trailer for The Red Baron. It has a cast of people I generally like, including Lena Headey, Til Schweiger, and Joseph Fiennes. That said, I feel a little weird about a movie whose point of view inclines the viewer to feel sympathetic towards the Axis. I realise, of course, that individuals are different than the whole, that situations are complex, there are two sides to every coin, etc. but I still find it uncomfortable, and that may prevent me from watching this movie. Plus, glorifying war is not my favourite thing to do, though the fight scenes look pretty badass and good action is an Achilles heel of mine.
Both trailers are available here.
Also, dear readers, do you like it when I review stuff? I think I will continue, when I have little else to say, unless of course you HATE IT and DISAGREE and in which case comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
