20th Century Fox

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

mandy — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:00:00 +0000

I knew when I bought my ticket that Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps would not be a feminist film. I had an idea of the storyline: Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) returns for Oliver Stone’s modern depiction of the beginnings of the current economic crisis, told through the eyes of Jake Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a young ambitious businessman, and his girlfriend Winnie (Carey Mulligan), Gekko’s daughter. I entered the theater prepared for a film starring and made for men.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a hyper-masculine telling of extremely wealthy business executives engaged in dangerous and unethical games with each other. Apart from the lack of strong female characters, which I would expect in a “business thriller” film, there are parts of the movie that betray a more pervasive and insidious destruction of women. The film’s treatment of Winnie made my jaw drop on several occasions—not only because of the harsh ways she was manipulated by other characters but also by the sheer banality of this kind of treatment. Little energy is spent questioning the ways Jake hurts her, and Winnie's routine mistreatment normalizes such behavior.

In a key moment, Jake deceives Winnie into handing over her hefty fortune to his pet project, all the while assuring her that this means she will be “doing something with her life." Jake implies that her actions are only worthwhile if done in support of his business goals, not her own passions. This felt hollow and manipulative to me, but not to Winnie; she signs away her millions with a smile. Jake’s dishonesty and colossal mistake with Winnie’s money is a blip in the film, and its effect on their relationship is shockingly negligible. Winnie is simply a piggy bank who doesn't complain about being the plaything of an ambitious businessman.

This isn't the end of Winnie's misuse, as Jake uses her as a bargaining chip for his own gain when he discovers she is pregnant, a development that brings the idea that a woman’s worth is in her womb to the fore. When the characters meet after a brief time apart, Jake clasps Winnie’s growing belly. What should have been a time to discuss the dishonesty that had driven them apart becomes a moment of instant reconciliation.

By juxtaposing male economic success with female pregnancy, the film compares traditional male and female creation. This dichotomy could make for an interesting discussion of gender role expectations. Unfortunately, Stone lets this point fall flat. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps doesn't discuss social attitudes nor does it adequately confront the issues it raises surrounding the male ownership of female bodies.

While Winnie's objectification stands out as the most problematic aspect of the film, if we take a distanced look we can make some larger conclusions about how women have been treated during the financial crisis. Women, on average, are more severely affected and are more likely to live in poverty than their male counterparts, and pop culture’s focus on the downfall of wealthy men narrows the film's narrative about those most vulnerable to the crisis. Like most of what is coming out of Hollywood, this film doesn’t focus on the real victims, but on a few stylized anti-heroes.

Even without a feminist lens, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps lacks intrigue and depth. It misses the mark by not telling an interesting story about the dangers of our economic habits nor about the personalities involved in our nation’s latest catastrophe. Stone merely captures a few fleeting moments in the lives of the country’s richest businessmen and throws in some objectification of women for good measure.

Written by: Andrea Gittleman, October 7th 2010

Knight and Day

admin — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:02:00 +0000

Directed by James Mangold

20th Century Fox

I’ve read almost universally bad reviews for Knight and Day, and I read most of them before I saw the movie. I don’t usually read reviews of a movie before I see it, because I don’t want my opinion to be tainted; in this case, they might’ve been, because I went into the movie with hyper-low expectations. That may have played a hand, because I actually really enjoyed the movie.

In the world of most critics, this admission will mean I’m a sell out and have no taste whatsoever, but I’m getting to the age where I don’t care anymore. I’m not a studio plant, and I don’t love everything, as I get accused of so often when I admit liking a movie that bombs. I like what I like, I hate what I hate, and I’ll tell you why for both.

For starters, Knight and Day did a lot of things very right, like the casting. We all think Tom Cruise is a little bit crazy in real life, and whether you believe any of the hype or not, that’s what his public image has become. But here’s the thing about actors: they’re acting. And their personal beliefs shouldn't be a factor. Here, Cruise plays a wacky, at times out of control, spy. By embracing some of the stereotypes he has come to represent he’s saying, “I’m in on the joke.” It’s the best move he could’ve possibly made, and I haven’t enjoyed him this much in many, many moons.

Cameron Diaz is also perfectly cast as the neurotic female lead. She’s become well known for her high-strung roles, and here she is frequently given the chance to use that squealing and panicking for laughs. She gets a better story arc, unlike some of her other perma-wackos, like her character in Being John Malkovich, for example. Amazing movie and she’s great in it, but she doesn’t get the chance to change much in that. Here, we’re treated to seeing her character learn how to literally roll with the punches and find some long-missing fulfillment in her adventure as she learns how to handle herself and even begins to feed off of the danger she is surrounded by. (The more discerning viewer will look for character symbolism involving the car she is working on in the film.)

One of the greatest complaints about Knight and Day is that there is a device used to take us from scene to scene wherein Cameron Diaz’s character is drugged, meaning we miss out on some of the action of how they get from point A to point B. As a feminist, it would’ve bothered me for its potential date rape allusions, but after the first time, Diaz’s character asks to be drugged, so that pretty much solved my problem of her having her free will taken away. There's also a conclusion to the whole drugging thing that will bring closure to any one that still finds it troublesome.

The best thing about Knight and Day for me was the escapism. Beautiful locations shot well with some great action pieces is the definition of a fun summer popcorn movie. I do believe I’ll have to catch this again in theaters. That’s how much I liked it. All I wanted was to have fun and this movie delivered, and then some. I say, go see it. Just let yourself go and relax and try to forget the actor's personal lives and all the critics telling you to hate it. If you do hate it, hate it for your own reasons, and not because someone told you to on a movie review site.

[Excerpted from Born for Geekdom(http://www.bornforgeekdom.com/2010/06/grown-ups-movie-review-from-feminist.html)

Written by: Audrey M. Brown, July 2nd 2010

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

admin — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:03:00 +0000

Directed by Shawn Levy

20th Century Fox

A summer blockbuster with a feminist edge? Yes, that is indeed what we find with the Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. The film opens with Ben Stiller’s character, Larry Daly, finding himself longing to return to the New York Museum of Natural History in spite of his entrepreneurial successes. He returns just in time to save his museum pals from deep storage in Washington, DC. The story unfolds from there with Stiller searching to save his friends in a (Freudian) attempt to recover a part of himself.

Reprising the characters from the first film,Night at the Museum, Robin Williams as Teddy Roosevelt, Ricky Gervais as the quixotic museum manager, and Mizuo Peck as Sacajawea can all be counted on to provide solid belly laughs. Owen Wilson as Jedediah Smith alongside Steve Coogan as Octavius make an inimitable duo whose humor is witty and clever. This sequel also introduces the audience to new characters—notably Bill Hader’s General George Armstrong Custer (or Pawhuska for you Black Elk fans), who is brought to life in a way that is both historically accurate and hysterical.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian was developed in close conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution in order to be as true-to-history as possible. Amy Adams brings Amelia Earhart to life in the most genuine and charming way possible by highlighting her brilliant aeronautic pioneering and the way her passion for life inspired the best in those around her. In addition to screening the IMAX version of the film at both the National Air and Space Museum and the Natural History Museum, the Smithsonian will be hosting Night at the Museum sleep-overs for kids this summer. Little did James Smithson know when he left his bequest for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge" that his desire would grow to its current state of 139 million objects displayed at nineteen museums, nor was he aware that his gift would be featured in such a way on the big screen.

Whether you visit Washington, DC on the big screen, or make a summer holiday of it, you will not be disappointed. Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is a smart, funny, and absolutely enjoyable film.

Written by: Susan G. Reyes Vasquez, May 22nd 2009

Taken

admin — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:04:00 +0000

Directed by Pierre Morel

20th Century Fox

Reading this review will tell you all you need to know about Taken. If you haven't see the film, perhaps now is the time for you to cease reading, as spoilers abound. Then again, the film follows an overused and clichéd Hollywood format that makes spoilage an inevitability if you've a tendency for moviegoing, and my commentary on Taken might be more worth your while than viewing the ninety-minute film. The choice is yours to make.

Ever wonder what you'd get by mixing sexist stereotypes with ones about Muslims? Oh wait, I think that's happened before -- many, many times. Taken is just the most recent example of this ever-present phenomenon, and it has brought in $124 million to date. Apparently tired tropes sell.

Liam Neeson plays the estranged father, Bryan Mills, of Kim (Maggie Grace), a spoiled yet sweet seventeen-year-old girl who lives with her mother (Famke Janssen) and step-father in posh American splendor. Mills recently quit his job—which he describes as being a "preventer" for an unspecified special ops entity run by the US government—in order to build a relationship with his daughter. The conflict begins almost immediately, as Kim requires her father's legal permission to go on an adult-free, intercontinental vacation with a friend to follow U2's European Tour. (She initially tells her dad she'll be spending the summer in Paris). Dad tells Daughter that the world is a dangerous place. Mom tells dad he's being overprotective. Dad caves in hopes of engendering Daughter's love.

When Kim and her friend Amanda, a sexually permissive nineteen-year-old whose sole role in Taken is to put the two young women in danger by following her hormonal whims, arrive in Paris they are promptly snatched up by a group of men, but not before we learn that Kim is a virgin. We discover within minutes (thanks to Dad's "particular set of skills") that the girls have been taken by a group of Muslim Albanians that specialize in kidnapping of young, foreign girls who are traveling alone (read: without male protection) and are to be sold into sexual slavery. The star and crescent tattoo on the captor's hand somehow lets Dad know that he has ninety-six hours to save Daughter.

So how does Mills do it? By being hyper-masculine to the point of invincibility, of course. These Muslim men stole his property, after all, and he wants it back. (The kidnapping is to be read, in part, as the fault of overly permissive and naive Mom who used guilt to override Dad's "reason" to allow Daughter go to Paris, which included colluding in Daughter's lying to Dad and using ridiculous Dr. Phil-like platitudes about "not smothering" Daughter.) The mission of this now-enraged father will not be thwarted, and all tactics (including rampant killing and bodily torture) are at his disposal to save poor Kim while her purity is still in tact.

Being a virgin, and therefore highly valuable, Kim is singled out for sale to a wealthy businessman. Unfortunately, sluttish Amanda is not so fortunate and Mills finds her dead of a drug overdose, a punishment for failing to be sexually chaste. After looking in a number of seedy places, Mills works his way up the food chain to the elite meat market where he sees Kim sold—after being described as "certified pure"—for half a million dollars to an older Arab man. (Kim isn't the girl sold to this man. He has bought a veritable harem of virgins who are dolled up and dressed in white lace robes, which veil their young faces, before being bought to his bed chamber.)

I already told you that Mills saves Kim, and that's where the story neatly ends. We don't find out what happens to the rest of the girls or the traffickers that Mills encounters on his quest. And really, he makes it quite clear that he's not interested in their fate, which he sees as just a part of the business. Mills only cares about the fate of Kim because she is his daughter, and therefore, his quest was personal. (He tells this to one of the higher-ups, just before he kills him.)

Lest lascivious France escape unscathed, the French government benefits from human sexual slavery too, padding their pockets through the sale of female flesh. Interestingly, the system of trafficking itself is never scrutinized; it's simply accepted as the way things are. Except that what is shown in Taken is not really the way things are in the world of sex trafficking.

For starters, it is extremely uncommon for an American girl to be trafficked. Instead, the victims tend to be women who "originate from countries experiencing political and economic instability, internal displacement, militarism, civil unrest, internal armed conflict, and natural disasters." Women who are trafficked tend to be from Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, not the United States—but reality doesn't serve Taken's cautionary, paternalistic, white supremacist tale. In order to effectively convey its fearmongering, Taken needs its victim to be a picture of feminine perfection: lily white, innocent, young, beautiful, and American. (Kim even dreams of being a singer instead of taking advantage of her family's economic privilege to pursue a more cerebrally engaging career.)

The use of anti-Muslim and anti-feminist fare in Hollywood blockbusters is certainly nothing new. (What is interesting, though, is how other reviews have ignored—or promoted—their use in Taken.) It is ironic that the makers of Taken actually reinforce the ideas that make sex trafficking possible. Advocating for social, political, and economic equality of marginalized populations is one method endorsed to curb the sale of women and build struggling economies through legal means. You see, viewing someone through a lens of humanity has the funny effect of making it more difficult to treat them as chattel or evildoers. I guess the makers of Taken didn't get that memo.

Written by: Mandy Van Deven, February 12th 2009