?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I'm on holiday...

But really, this article about The Hunger Games spoke to me on a deep level. And I would definitely choose Alice from Resident Evil (no matter how silly the movies are) over Katniss if the zombies were coming. Hell, I'd want Rayne even more.  I also do not like Twilight or THG, and it's an instinctive dislike; I don't want to read a book with characters that are so passive, they depend entirely on the kindness of men to survive.  Seriously.  I can't bear that; more, I can't relate to it.  I don't understand how anyone could think Twilight was romantic; the premise of the first book sounded terrifying to me, not dreamy.  THG (the movie; I did not read the book, because the premise didn't work, somehow.  Probably that instinct again) was okay, I had a good time, but I expected more of the girl who volunteered herself in place of her little sister, whom she knew would not survive.  I expected the anger on the train to translate to anger and a determination that winning was the way to fight the system. Instead, she becomes almost entirely passive; even the "magic bees" that get her away from the strong (and heavily brainwashed) kids - we're supposed to see them as the bad guys, but they're victims of the government just as much, if not more, than Katniss - are pointed out to her by someone else.  All the people with agency (i.e., the ability to make decisions for themselves) in the movie are men.  She has some good ideas, and yes, I really cried when Rue died (um, she also pointed out that the mockingjays were a great signaling system; does Katniss know nothing about the country, even though she supposed to be the food provider for her family?).  I just feel I was told about this kick-ass girl who is killer with a bow and arrow, who provides for her family, whom everyone admires, and I got... not that.  It's why I'm such a huge fan of Michelle Rodriguez, who deliberately painted herself into a casting corner ("tough chick who dies"), because she refused to play female characters that were dependent on male agency.  Now, I don't blame Jennifer Lawrence in the least for taking the role of Katniss - girl's gotta have a career.  I hear she's really good in Silver Linings Playbook.  And the number of female "action hero" roles out there are vanishingly few, plus Milla Jovovich has a lock on the best one. 

(This continues to be the case, despite over ten years of Milla Jovovich making big box office as an action hero.  The same kind of factor applies to Will Smith - black mainstream action heros are vanishingly few, despite Tyler Perry's work in that field.  It's a case of producers saying "well, yes, Milla/Will brought the money in, but that's because she/he's Milla/Will, not because people want female and black heroes".)

Oh, just go read the article, it says it much better than I can, since my ability to speak about my feminism is not particularly well-formed.  It's cool.

This attitude, though it took a lot of years to come out, was planted in me by my mother, who is awesome, not least for her ability to drink any man under the table.  But she's mostly awesome for taking her decision-making as much as possible out of the hands of the men around her, and using it herself.  And she grew up at a time when even the feminists were looking at you funny if you didn't have a man.  She also taught me that being aware of why you're working within the status quo (using makeup, wearing high heels, dyeing my hair to get:  Attention, better jobs, a chance at being let into the halls of power) gives you more power to buck the status quo when needed (which, in her case, was getting a job at The Economist where she could write left-leaning articles that would be read without prejudice by right-leaning people).  I can't claim any such noble goal, and it took marrying a feminist man to get me on track, but part of being a feminist is believing that you really are any man's equal, and acting on it.  I'm doing okay so far.

Thanks, Mum.  Happy Christmas.

Comments

my_stitching
Dec. 24th, 2012 03:38 pm (UTC)
Sorry, but I think both of the articles are a big steaming pile of bullshit. ;) The author claims to have read the books, but then says things that happened in the movie but that happened much differently in the book. And the author also says things that may be partially right in the first book but are totally wrong in the second two books.

For the record, I saw the movie and liked it so I got the books. Loved them. In fact, I read all three and then went back and read them again immediately. And then when I finished, I read them all again.

I don't always like Katniss. Sometimes she does things that are just cringeworthy especially in the third book. But I love the story. Some psychologist who wants to turn everything into a feminist statement can twist it however they like, but I still like the story.

And what does Alice really have to do with Katniss? Alice is from a fucking video game, for crying out loud. She has been genetically altered to have superhuman everything. OF COURSE you would want her over Katniss in a zombie fight. That is a huge DUH. But I really wouldn't want to read a book about Alice that wasn't about zombie killing because while she is great in a video game and a zombie movie... as a person she is fairly 1 dimensional.

But besides all that... I hope you have a lovely holiday, Laura. :)
my_stitching
Dec. 25th, 2012 12:33 am (UTC)
I've been thinking about this since my post and I wanted to clarify why I felt the author was full of it. As I said previously, I have read all three of the books three times. I know this story backwards and forwards. And that person is so full of their own hubris they obviously decided what the book said either without bothering to really read it or made up their argument before reading and looked for things that might make it fit. We all know some SCA folks that document their research like that. ;)

Ok first of all, Katniss is anything but passive. I can see why someone who saw the movie might think that. But no one who read the books should get that impression. She isn't passive, she is stoic. Those are two totally different things. She grew up in a place where showing the wrong emotion can get you killed. She has learned from a very young age to blank out her face completely. She is filled with anger and resists anyone trying to help her, even her own mother. How does that equate to wanting a man to solve all of her problems? And she is not continually saved by men? Really? She spend three books going out of her way to save Peeta. Ok two and a half books, but I don't want to give away any spoilers. :p

And Katniss can't hit moving targets at close range? You mean like hitting a moving rabbit, squirrel or other game in the eye to kill it? Every. Single. Time. It mentions this a couple of times in the book. And it even comes up in a scene in the movie.

And Thresh is retarded? What friggin book did that guy read? Ok so a guy is black and works in the fields and doesn't give very long answers so he is retarded? Who is the racist again? The author? The viewers? No, I think it was that asshole who wrote that article. Here is the quote from the book on his interview with Caesar Flickerman: "The boy tribute from District 11, Thresh, has the same dark skin as Rue, but the resemblance stops there. He's one of the giants, probably six and a half feet tall and built like an ox, but I noticed he rejected the invitations from the Career Tributes to join their crowd. Instead he's been very solitary, speaking to no one, showing little interest in training. Even so, he scored a ten and it's not hard to imagine he impressed the Gamemakers. He ignores Caesar's attempts at banter and answers with a yes or no or just remains silent. If only I was his size, I could get away with sullen and hostile." Sullen and hostile... not retarded. And anyone who has read the books would know about what goes on in his district to make him that way.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I can't tell if the guy writing that article is a troll trying to get clicks by winding people up or someone who needs to prove their point so badly that they just don't pay attention to anything outside their own mind. Or just an asshole. Maybe all three? ;) I read the article to my husband who also read the books and he thought the guy lied about ever reading the books.
ladyaneira
Dec. 25th, 2012 12:42 am (UTC)
Ya, the movie was a very . . . condensed version of the book. They got most of the *action* into the movie, but very little of the social critique or insight into the characters. Movie definitely fell flat.
standgale
Dec. 25th, 2012 09:37 am (UTC)
Definitely condensed - I read the books first, and I kind of wish I'd watched it, then read it, then watched it again, because I'd like to see how my perception of the story changed and how the story appeared with just the movie. It's hard to see, having read the books first, how anyone who hadn't read the books even understood the movie since there was so much background and explanations and REASONS for things that couldn't fit into the movie.
chocolatepot
Dec. 25th, 2012 03:40 am (UTC)
Honestly, I think it's a combination of two and three. Reading his other articles, he's a libertarian of the particularly unpleasant kind that seems to twist reality into whatever form aggrandizes himself, whether it's regarding how only he sees how truly destructive THG is on poor impressionable females or how only he understands the problem with all the unemployed twenty-somethings (YES I am upset).

Latest Month

April 2017
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com