pivic
Stockholm
Backlash รก la "Working Girl" — 3 years ago
I haven’t come across anything as backlash-entoned as this since I last saw “Working Girl” and “Fatal Attraction”, heard hatred spewed towards women or read Susan Faludi’s book “Backlash” – obviously.
Yes, it is subtly done, I give the film-makers that.
In this film, the working woman is The Devil. Please, don’t mistake me for some dried-up slag; the main character repels herself, whatever that means, twice over (at least) in this forsaken piece of Meryl-Streep-rules-it-yes-but-it’s-still-pap, first, by trying to become something other than a drab, everyday, boring-but-still-human-person, which means becoming an over-worked eentity, a character, albeit an archetype – an archetype for a woman who, if in the guise of a man, would rule the effing world. Second, by forsaking her new, successful self to become everything her boyfriend wanted her to be which is a quote from the film, and is of course double-edged, as he’s played by the dude who plays a thoroughly see-through main character in the meta-series “Entourage”. How lovely. If you’re used to mainstream Hollywood-productions from the past 50 years, this is what you’re served.
Of course, there are women who are worse than The Working Woman here, i.e. the woman who’s hierarchically above her. What, do you really think The Rich Libertine-ish Male Author breathes anything other than fairy-dust and finds work…tiresome? No. He’s elite. He probably cries when he doesn’t get his want; or doesn’t he?
Meryl Streep’s character is an Ice Queen. A “dragon”, as she refers to (a magazine possibly referring to) herself in her solitary sobbing moment of this film, where she finds herself inept to be perfect – because she cannot hold onto a man. Oh, glorious film! as subtle as a sledge-hammer art thou, glistening against the utter phallic symbol in any common advertisment, oh, film!
It’s too bad a flick like this, obviously sponsored by Apple, builds a good feel in the start – mostly due to Streep’s and Tucci’s acting-abilities, not to mention their acting – couldn’t achieve the sense of style.
To quote K.T. Tunstall’s “Suddenly I See”, one of the first tracks off the soundtrack from this film:
“She got the power to be
The power to give
The power to see
Suddenly I see”
Yes, I see: this is crap. Let me sum the lesson this film teaches us: if you’re female, don’t have big ambitions, unless those go towards serving your man. And by the way, if you’re male and homosexual, you lose, too.
Comments
malevolentmuse
Orlando
You have got to be shitting me. Dude, you so need to stop overthinking movies you see not to mention actually read up on these things before you try to dissect their psychological undertones. The movie is based on a book written by someone who was the assistant to one of the biggest flaming bitches in the fashion publication universe. Translation: it’s based on a true story. If you didn’t like the movie fine, but cut the pseudo-feminist crap.
Queen Esther
New York City
overthinking it?
i’m not so sure that he’s overthinking this. the fact that it’s based on a real story completely underscores his entire point: nowadays ambitious powerful women are pretty much the devil
-or they’re vilified in some way or another (oprah being a lesbian, for example) -and ambitious powerful men are, well, ambitious and powerful.if the streep character were a man, it would be business as usual.
pivic
Stockholm
Late reply
Sorry, I missed your reply, which is why I have taken my time answering.
First, do I need to stop overthinking movies? Does “overthinking movies” mean anything other than analysing them? You remind me of Bill Hicks’ old joke where he tells of himself in a restaurant, reading:
“Whatcha readin’ for?” asked the waitress.
“What?” he replied.
“Well, well. Looks like we got ourselves a reader here!”
Have you ever read gender-based theory or, indeed, ever thought about analysing things further than you can handle, yourself? Case in point:
You claim that the book upon which this film is based is written by an assistant to “one of the biggest bitches in the fashion publication universe”.
If you don’t have facts to back this with, you’re approaching libel, at least if you do not use the word “bitch” to address your mother.
Critique should always be based upon insight, and I am afraid you have passed none during your debate, at least not enough to edit your own comment before clicking Save!.
While this film may support the theory of many, i.e. Meryl Streep’s character is supposed to be Anna Wintour, famous editor-in-chief at Vogue, Lauren Weisberger, the person who wrote the book that this film is based on, firmly denies it.
Based on a true story. Those words mean nothing in regards to the contents or, if applicable, the validity of a film.
Anyway, as I wrote, the important lesson to be learned here, is obviously that all women must pay for being either single, female and successful – because they cannot have it without a man, present and foremost in their lives. Otherwise they will just kill themselves through work and their wombs will be barren forever, so to speak.
Please, read Susan Faludi’s “Backlash” and realise there are facts behind these statements and similes, or just join any course in feminism to start unwrapping the myth that media is creating. I mean, ever wondered why women are paid less than men? Think about it. There are riches to be learned, but films like these will only stagger problems, not help to solve them.