Jamie Kilstein (via stuzie)
Other things most straight white guys get way more upset about than they do about rape:
- Taylor Swift
- the song “Call Me Maybe”
- girls who date “douchebags”
- basically any music that isn’t played by white dudes with guitars
- girls who are “shallow” or “fake”
- girls who wear too much make-up
- girls who don’t wear enough make-up
- fat girls
- when people badmouth dark and gritty superhero films
- sports
- sports
- sports
- guns
- fishing
- hunting
- vegetarianism
- Justin Bieber
- someone thinking that they’re gay
- musicals
(via blossom-bamford)
I had a really intense dream last night about solving a murder mystery with Neil Gaiman. We knew the killer was in a certain group of people but we couldn’t figure out who it was, and they always seemed to be two steps ahead of us, like once I asked Neil Gaiman to hold onto a book that was Very Important Evidence and he took his attention off it for a few minutes and the murderer STOLE IT.
I was very disappointed in Neil Gaiman.
DO YOU JUST HAVE SOMEONE IN YOUR LIFE THAT MAKES YOU REALLY HAPPY NO MATTER WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT WITH YOU AND THEY JUST ALWAYS CHEER YOU UP AND THEY PUT THEMSELVES DOWN SOMETIMES BUT YOU DONT KNOW WHY BECAUSE EVERYTHING ABOUT THEM IS SO AMAZING AND YOU WANT THEM TO BE IN YOUR LIFE FOREVER BECAUSE THEY MAKE YOU SO HAPPY OH GOSH
- The Atlantic: It sounds like you're saying that literary "talent" doesn't inoculate a writer—especially a male writer—from making gross, false misjudgments about gender. You'd think being a great writer would give you empathy and the ability to understand people who are unlike you—whether we're talking about gender or another category. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
- Junot Diaz: I think that unless you are actively, consciously working against the gravitational pull of the culture, you will predictably, thematically, create these sort of fucked-up representations. Without fail. The only way not to do them is to admit to yourself [that] you're fucked up, admit to yourself that you're not good at this shit, and to be conscious in the way that you create these characters. It's so funny what people call inspiration. I have so many young writers who're like, "Well I was inspired. This was my story." And I'm like, "OK. Sir, your inspiration for your stories is like every other male's inspiration for their stories: that the female is only in there to provide sexual service." There comes a time when this mythical inspiration is exposed for doing exactly what it's truthfully doing: to underscore and reinforce cultural structures, or I'd say, cultural asymmetry.
I’ve seen plenty of interviews on this particular film, and in all honesty, I do appreciate your insight. But you do know that the 1939 film was called “The Wizard of Oz” right?
And the wizard, believe it or not was the MAN behind the curtain.
It’s not as if they now threw a man into the dynamic but instead chose to focus it on the man (who was still the title character in 1939)
I just think that the original name referenced the man but never focused on him, so what’s wrong with focusing on him now?
The original focused on females, as did the “Wicked” canon. I just don’t see what is wrong with a “Wizard of Oz” film actually being about the wizard of Oz.
Regardless of what it was called, the movie was undoubtedly about Dorothy (and also what a sham the Wizard turned out to be). The Wizard of Oz is named such not because the Wizard is the Main Character, but because the Wizard is the objective of the plot. Using this line of thinking, one could be lead to believe that “The Empire Strikes Back” was about the Empire—when, in fact, as we all know, it’s about Luke Skywalker’s Hero’s Journey.
The problem I’m having is that in the original movie, and indeed in the original novels, the Wizard is a sham. He’s a fake, a fraud, a flimflammer con-man who tricked his way into great regard and, quite honestly, didn’t know how to get himself out of it (until Dorothy [a lady, for those following at home] came along—which was and remains hugely progressive).
The problem is not necessarily that the movie is focusing on The Man Behind The Curtain—the problem is that the movie is taking already established canon, and trying to flip it on it’s head for the sake of making a male character look good. He doesn’t look good. He’s not supposed to look good. He’s a cheat! A cad! A charlatan! A movie with a focus on this (not on “redeeming” Oscar, but instead on exploring just how he fooled everyone and why he couldn’t escape it even after he started to feel bad) would be super cool. Kind of unnecessary, what with all the other novels you could pull your Oz canon from, but cool all the same.
But it’s been done. There’s a million movies about there about Bad Dudes, there’s a million movies out there about Dudes Gettin’ Redeemed. In fact, I would argue that there’s a movie about there about just about any sort of Dude doin’ just about any sort of Thing that you can think of.
There is not, however, a million movies out there about Ladies Gettin’ Shit Done. There is not any kind of movie about any kind of Lady rockin’ it however she wants. And to take a movie from a pretty much explicitly feminist canon and turn it into a movie about a Dude is—I mean, that sucks dude. It really, really sucks. A movie about Princess Ozma reclaiming her kingdom? Hell yeah. A movie about Glinda not sitting on her ass because THE FUCK DUDE YOU ARE A WITCH??? Fuck yes! My ass is in the seat!
Another movie about another dude doing a thing and women sitting around and watching him (and occasionally being catalysts for his feelings/actions)? Yawn. Boring. The world doesn’t need another movie about a hero’s journey. I’ll go watch Star Wars.
Quite frankly, a dose of feminism would do Hollywood wonders. And also my heart and my fingers, because then I wouldn’t have to write these anymore.
Like, the enjoyment of the movie is absolutely your prerogative and I’m not trying to tell you THIS IS A BAD MOVIE AND YOU SHOULD HATE IT FOR THE GOOD OF WOMANKIND!!!! (although it might be a bad movie—still, if you liked it, you liked it, nothin’ wrong with that; I personally love the Fast And the Furious Series so it’s not like I’m the arbiter of good cinema here).
But enjoyment does not preclude critique, and a feminist critique is definitely warranted in this situation.
I think that they need to rewatch it.
I say this because it was FILLED WITH STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS.
EVANORA. The original wicked witch who craved control, killed the king and had the land of Oz in fear FOR YEARS. I don’t know how someone can say that she’s anti-feminist.
GLINDA. The…
This is the opposite of what needed to be said
This is A Wrong Opinion
Why is it a wrong opinion?
Because it was a disney film with a MALE PROTAGONIST?
Can we not have that? Or must every disney film feature this “feminist” female protagonist.
It’s a damn prequel, we get strong females in “The Wizard of Oz” anyway and second think about the time this movie even takes place.
Angry females who have a problem with males doing ANYTHING aren’t feminists, they’re just bitter.
So what, strong females only started existing in the latter half of the twentieth century? The time period has 0 to do with how strong or weak a female character can be, and leaning on that as an excuse is a crutch.
I mean, I’ll get to the rest of this post when I’m on a computer, but uh, let’s start with the one easy wrong thing here
Okay fine the time period shouldn’t matter. I’ll give you that. But WEAK FEMALE CHARACTERS?
Since when was THE ANTAGONISTS WEAK? I’ll admit Glinda’s character was pretty flawed and wasn’t as empowering as some might have liked but have you seen the original “Wizard of Oz” that’s just Glinda’s character. Always has been and always will be.
Point is, it’s a prequel to a film with major strong females and it only had one male, who wasn’t so empowered anyway. It wasn’t a film about how the females were weak and the man saved the day.
It was about a man who changed from a sleazy womanizer to a goodhearted man and about filling a town with hope that they could overcome their perils.
If your interpreation of the original Glinda was “weak” theeeen—I mean, not only are we not on the same page, we’re not even in the same book. I can’t think of a single popular characterization (okay I’m limited to the Original Wizard of Oz and Wicked [both play and actual novel which are two different things]) of Glinda that is weak. Arguably, in Wicked, she’s shallow and supposedly “frivolous”, but she’s not a weak character.
A weak character (the definition that I’m using) is that the actual characterization is bad. The character can be shallow, friviolous, stupid, etc, but provided with proper support, can still be good characters. Not good people, mind, but good characters all the same. Some (okay most) of my favourite characters are goddamn awful people (curse you, Scarlett O’Hara).
If it was a film about three women, then, pray tell, why is there a man in the equation at all? If there are three women in the script, why does the only male major character somehow end up with the spotlight regardless?
If the male isn’t so empowered, why is it his actions that drive the plot of the movie? By this very definition, he is empowered. People don’t make choices for him, he is not simply carried along on the wave of the action—he creates action.
This is in contrast with the three female characters, who are purely reactive. Not one of them puts the plot in motion or changes it—they simply react to the male lead in whatever capacity that might be, either falling in love, gettin’ real angry, or letting him ~save the day, as the case may be.
Also, if the three main women are powerful witches, why are they waiting on a man to save them?
Why couldn’t one of the three (or I suppose Theodora or Glinda) have inspired the town all by themselves? Why does Theodora immediately give up on everything because another woman (playing to the stereotypical “wily and wicked” witch) says that the LOVE OF HER LIFE (that she met yesterday) is cheating on her?
I mean—the hell, dude?
But then, you already said it: “It was about a man”.
I’m asking why one of the most female positive pieces of literature (seriously—have you read any of the Wizard of Oz novels? ALL ABOUT LADIES BEIN’ AWESOME LADIES U GO OZMA) was turned into a movie about a man?
Every single other big blockbuster out right now (I mean in theatres right now) is about a man—go ahead, count them, I’ll wait—so why was this particular one, already noted to be based on novels about Ladies, turned into a movie about the redemption of a man?
Like, this is a serious question, I’m actually asking if you have any insight into this. ‘Cause right now, all I got is “lol hollywood”
I love it when she gets all eloquent on me.
WELP CONVERSATION OVER LOOKS LIKE EVERYONE GO HOME.
