March 7, 2021

The Pajama Game 👎

 I remember watching this when I was little, like 12 or so, and I thought it was fun and entertaining.
Now, 35 years later... not so much.

It starts with this guy coming to the pajama factory to get a job, and he gets hired. As the superintendent. So far we know nothing about what he knows about making pajamas, and the secretary has more pondus and knowledge than he does. But he's A Man. He's not only A Man, he is The Man. We have already been made aware of that, when he walks through the sewing room and ALL the ladies are drooling over him, just by him walking by. He doesn't work for me. Too pudgy and mushy. (And I'm not referring to his physique here.)

I had also forgotten that it's a musical. And the cast singing... well... er...

Apparently the superintendent in this factory is the mechanic. 

The first meet with the female lead is... uh. He sees she's a woman and his whole demeanor changes into "oh, just a gal, this will be easy". And he gets her name wrong. Her name is "Babe Williams", and it was said very clearly twice in the last minute before he calls her "Wilson". One of the committee members points out this, and is rudely interrupted by Babe ("it doesn't matter"). Yes, it does matter. How come a superintendent doesn't know the name of the head of the grievance committee?
And then he calls her "cute". Puke.

Later the factory girls - and Babe - are a backdrop to some union activity. Of course, women aren't even interested in such important man stuff. 

Then Babe has her first song. "I'm Not at All in Love". Because of course a female cannot have a professional relationship to a man, especially not an attractive man, because everyone knows women only work until they get married, and that's the goal of every woman alive. Or at least every NATURAL, NORMAL, SANE woman.
And no-one believes her. Of course.

Then we have the relationship of Vernon Hines (Heinzy) and Gladys Hotchkiss. He's sickly jealous of her and argues with her for every little reason. *sigh* 

But it's a pleasure to watch Eddie Foy's footwork :-D

"What kind of a girl is this Babe Williams?"
"Oh, she's peppy."
"I can see that."
"Full of life."

Then he calls her into his office under false premise, and sexually harasses her, and tries to manipulate her into a date with him. What a hero. When she says "no", because he's the supervisor and she's the grievance committee, he has a pity party. "Her with her nose in the air". 

Comes the picnic.
One woman is apparently assaulted. Her dress and hair is disheveled, and she says to the woman helping her to fix her dress "Stay out in the open, honey, don't get down in them woods".

They have a knife throwing exhibition... the knife thrower is apparently an idiot. 

Some fat shaming

So, Babe stands in for the knife throwing, the hero tries to physically stop her from doing it, she pulls herself off, and goes to stand in front of the plank. Everyone is certain of that she's going to die, but nothing happens. She walks away and the "hero" tells her "my, but you're an impetuous girl".
Girl. She's over 30.
And then he comes on to her. Pretty heavily. He pushes her against a tree and tells her "let's quit fighting". They haven't fought at all. In any way, mode or manner. She has been kind and friendly, open, honest, proper and professional. So, then he kisses her. No consent is asked or given. And he pushes it, pushes it, pushes it, and then - actually - asks if she wants to be his girlfriend, and she says yes. Enter a dance number. Which basically starts with some sort of dance off where participants are forced to enter. Weird. But hey, it's Carol Haney, so she can dance, so no problems. I suppose it would have been a comical relief if she was a bad dancer. And then they have sort of dance "follow the leader" with a bit more fat shaming. Yay. It ends with everyone rolling in the dirt. So lovely.

Anyway, so they start dating, and she takes him home to meet her dad. They are oh so lovey dovey, but she is a stout union member and thinks it's not right that this pajama factory pays less to its workers than every other pajama factory in the US. She tells the lover boy, and he just ignores it.
So when the going gets tough, she sabotages the factory and he fires her, and she is such a stuck up bitch that she gets upset about it, and doesn't want to be with him any longer. He doesn't understand at all. Because he LUUUUUUVS her, and that should make everything all right. 

Now, I was expecting him to join the union, if he really loves her, but no.

This is the best thing in the movie. Ignore the rest. (Oh, and the dresses are wonderful. So Barbie.)

So, the a-hole takes Gladys to a club to get her drunk so that he can steal her key to the boss's books. And Gladys gives him the key anyway, but Heinzy is violently jealous and tries to kill her at work next day. And that's supposed to be funny. 

So - how do they solve the union problem? It turns out the boss has been stealing money all the time, the board has agreed to give the workers a raise already half a year ago. So while the union workers sing about how much more money they'll have in 10 years if they'll get the 7 1/2 cent raise, the "hero" let's the boss take honor for giving them the raise he's been stealing for half a year, and continue taking advantage of the situation... *sigh*
And, again, Mae is there right on the situation, and not letting the a-holes trick them, Babe hushes her down again and says "we won!" and everyone cheers. I would have said "Retroactive payment? They owe us? WE GIVE UP NOTHING, YOU BASTARDS!!!" Will Babe pay them the 78 dollars they gave up for having "won"? Sure...

And then we have a "party" at the pajama factory where everyone is wearing pajamas and it's SO FUNNY I'M GOING TO DIE LAUGHING HAHA. Yeah. Sure. Haha.
No. 

V Bechdel test
 
Yes, Mabel and Poopsie talk about tickets to the picnic and beer. 
 
X Mako Mori Test
- has a female character a narrative arc that is not about supporting a male's story

V Sexy Lamp Test

X The Crystal Gems Test

X F-Rating

X Sphinx Test
 
A woman has a primary role, but is she driving the action? No. Is she active rather than reactive? Sort of. Stereotypical? Well... Compelling? Not really. Complex? No. Multidimensional? Not really. She is pretty bland and flat. We really don't know much about her.
The movie has over 80% at Rotten Tomatoes and about 67% at IMDB, and they say it made Doris Day, but the story is... er... who cares. The play is rather popular though. OK music, etc.

XThe Feldman Score: 0

X Furiosa Test

X The Roxane Gay Test

It is not a woman's story.
The women are basically all sidekicks, bit players and romantic interests.
There are a lot of women with a lot to say, but no-one's asking. Gladys is amazing, Mabel is amazing, Mae is amazing. I think it would be wonderful to hear Babe's story as well. (And why is she Babe and not Kit, Kate or another form of Catherine, which is her real name?)
The romantic storyline? Oh, he fired her, didn't rehire her, so now they can get married, and she can become the housewife any 50s man deserves.
Absolutely no nothing but straight, white, Anglo-saxon protestants as far as eyes can see here.

 

Gender Balance - Gender Representation:
Well... I would say this movie gets points for gender balance in cast. BUT - there are only two women in the whole crew, the costume jeweller and the costumer (with her husband...). Everyone else is a male.

X The Uphold Test 

X The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test

X The Hagen Test

V The Koeze-Dottle Test
 
Gender Freedom:
 
Well... it's pretty traditional gender roles. But there are a couple of interesting details in it.
Mae is very tomboyish. She loves beer, and wears trousers quite a lot.
Babe is an authority who makes her own decisions and carries the consequences.
Gladys... there's the Steam song where she is dancing as one of they boys. They are all three dressed the same way, have short cut hair, the same choreography, flat shoes... but she sings with an obviously female voice. I really enjoyed that number.
But it's males who solve problems and cause trouble and create action.

X the MacGyver Test

Frankly, I don't think it passes, even though there is an honest, hard-working man in leadership position, and successful, and the problem isn't solved using violence. 
 
X the Raleigh Becket Test
 
V The Peirce Test

Well... the characters being either flat or underutilized, it's really hard to say anything of substance about this, but Babe has her own story, and she exists authentically with needs and desires that she pursues, and the audience can empathize with or understand the female lead’s desires and actions

V The Villarreal Test

The lead female character isn't introduced as sexualized, hardened, expressionless, soulless, matriarch, tired, older nor overworked. In fact, she is introduced as a competent superior and quite sympathetic. Even though it's at cost of Mae and fairness. 
And, she is shown to be in a position of authority or power, reckless, and sexual.

V The Landau Test

No female characters end up dead, pregnant, or as a plot problem.
A movie fails if:

V The Tauriel Test

Babe is good at her job, competent, demonstrated and recognized by everyone in the movie. She is the grievance committee lead and a union leader kind of.

X The Willis Test

Nope. Men couldn't be saying what women say and vice versa.

Gender Safety:

 Well... this is another difficult thing. On one hand, people aren't oversexualized, and there is no sexualization of children, objectification, etc. but it's full of sexual abuse. Which I spoke about earlier. Among others unwanted touching, forced kissing, comments, advances, insinuations... at the same time, people are in some way respected... I suppose in the 50s it was considered totally normal and acceptable.
 
V Molly Haskell
 
Age of primary and secondary actors?

Doris Day 35
John Raitt 40
Ralph Dunn 55 (the boss)
Carol Haney 33 (boss' secretary)
Eddie Foy jr 52 (Carol's boyfriend)
Reta Shaw 45 (John's secretary, "old woman")

X Social Justice and Equality:

C The Representation Test

four points. Women are represented as more than objects, it passes the Bechdel test, doesn't glorify violent men (but kind of excuses them), and doesn't perpetuate extreme/unhealthy body ideals for men nor women.

X The Vito Russo test
 
X Kent test

Aila test

X The Waithe Test

X The Ko Test

X The Villalobos Test

X The Deggans Test

X The Shukla Test

X The Latif Test

 
 
So... how could it be better?
 
The obvious answer is to add more diversity to the cast, and more women to the crew. That would already give more passes to this movie.

Give more depth to the characters and the story. 
 
No dang instalove. If she is complaining about why a woman can't be friends with a man without everyone assuming they are romantically involved, why a woman can't work with a man without people assuming she's in love with him, then work on that theme!  
 
The crooked, greedy boss should get some real, bad consequences. Sid could be an undercover agent from the Board coming to the factory to see why the workers are unhappy even after they gave them the rise they asked for.
 
Get rid of the sexual abuse. Sid could be courting Babe in a good, serious, respectful manner, and not in this way. It makes Sid look like grumpy five years old, and I dislike him very much. As it is right now, I can't see any reason to why Babe would be even interested in Sid.
 
What about some genderbending? Could Sid be a woman, and Babe a man? 
 
I would love Mae to get more importance.  

And I would love the union workers to actually do union work and not sing about how luvely it would be to get some 1000 dollars in 10 years, so that I could buy me some golden whateveritwas.

Also, what was with Babe and the apples? And why didn't she get her Western?

July 18, 2020

Robin and the 7 Hoods 👎

Well... it's kind of obvious this movie fails in almost every way possible.
So, why did I watch it? I got curious. I saw a pretty bad musical number, and thought "Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby and Sammy Davis Jr. How bad can it be? This must be just one of the worse numbers." Well... it was.

It is an OK movie, Robin Hood set in 20s gangster scene, and it's a comedic musical. It has brilliant moments (I love how Robin and Little John have their staff fighting over the stream as a game of pool... that was brilliant. And Martin cleans the table while singing "a man who loves his mother" :-D Brilliant!), good ideas, it is funny, and the guys can sing and act, but... er... uh... it's really just a big mess. There really isn't a story. I don't get a good idea of the characters or who they are, so I really don't care about any of them, or what happens to them. (Except Marian the Femme Fatale Villain... she was interesting.) I have to say Gordon Douglas wasn't that good a director.
The actors, especially Sammy Davis jr., Peter Falk and Victor Buono, save the show. Bing Crosby is his reliable self. None of the actors does a bad job, but they don't have that good parts.


6,5/10 IMDb
44 % Rotten Tomatoes

X Bechdel test

Of course it fails! What did you think? Who would be discussing with whom? There's only one woman named, and the Robinettes in the above picture just smile and are pretty.

X Mako Mori Test

V Sexy Lamp Test

X The Crystal Gems Test

Only one female character in the whole movie. Ok, let's give the cocktail waitress a pass. Two. Doesn't change anything :-D

X F-Rating

X Sphinx Test

X The Feldman Score

Well... there is a female character initiating sexual advances. That's about it.

X Furiosa Test

X The Roxane Gay Test

Though I have to say Marian plays quite a big role here.
Is she a complex female character? Well... I don't think so.
Does she contribute significantly to the story? Sort of.
Is she driving the action? Not really.
Is the woman active? Yes.
How stereotypical is the character? Very, I would say. And at the same time not. It is quite interesting role.
Is she compelling, complex and multidimensional? Not really.
But - she isn't the romantic interest, a sidekick, or bit player.
But - her world wasn't populated with intelligent women - or women at all, really - and she didn't really have a story.

X Molly Haskell



X The Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

There's about 20 males for each female, and most women are showgirls, waitresses, cigarette girls etc. There is one "main" role for a woman, and... she's someone's daughter.

X Gender Freedom:

Boys get to have all the adventures, make decisions, and nobody subverts anything.

X Gender Safety:

Well... there is no sexualization of children. Except that... perhaps the women are teenagers.

X Social Justice and Equality:

No disabled people, orphans are mentioned, but not in any significant manner, everyone is straight and about the same class etc. Well... Marian is a "society dame" and Robin not.
No critique of power structures, consumerism, environment or social justice.Well... Alan creates several beneficial institutions to help the poor and downtrodden, but it's more or less just a front to Robin's criminal activities.




The first female enters the movie at 12:30, there's a black funeral going on at the cemetary at the same time, with some female participants.Maid Marian is presented - or shown - at 15 minutes. She walks by the guys, leaves a rose on the gasket, walks out - the guys comment on her looks.
First female talking role, some time later - an unnamed cocktail waitress Dean Martin hits on.

X The Uphold Test 

X The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test

X The Hagen Test

The first TWO crowd scenes were SOLELY men.
Only ONE named female in the cast of 23.

X The Koeze-Dottle Test

V The Peirce Test

I think it passes. Marian is an antagonist with her own story. She has dimension - at least a little - and exists authentically with needs and desires that she pursues through dramatic action, and one can understand her desires and actions.

V The Villarreal Test

I think it passes. She is in a position of authority and is sexual.

X The Landau Test

V The Tauriel Test

Let's give it a pass.

X The Willis Test

X the MacGyver Test

V the Raleigh Becket Test

I think it passes :-D Even though the development of the female character was negative and had a very negative impact on the central male character's narrative arc. And even though she tries to end up as a romantic interest, he doesn't want to.

Age of primary and secondary actors
Frank Sinatra - 49
Dean Martin - 47
Sammy Davis Jr. - 39
Bing Crosby - 61
Peter Falk - 37
Barbara Rush - 37

No male nudity, many women wearing revealing nightclub hostess clothing.

Oh, no, that's not Robin and his hoods, 
that's Robin and Babe, Sweetheart, Honey, Bird, Dollface, Toots, and Sweetie


X Gender Bias Without Borders

C The Representation Test

X The Vito Russo test

X Kent test

X Aila test

X The Waithe Test

X The Ko Test

X The Villalobos Test

X The Deggans Test

X The Shukla Test

X The Latif Test

So... how could it be better?

So many ways...

The obvious is, of course, more jobs for women, on screen and behind it.

They could have given the cocktail waitresses bigger role, names, more importance. I was expecting the first female speaking role to be bigger, for example. She could have had a name.
The gangsters could have had girlfriends, wives, sisters, what ever.
Then they could have had two molls having a discussion about something. I mean, it could have been something as trivial as hats or food or dance steps.

Had they had three named female characters, for example, Marian, Marian's friend or maid, and the waitress... perhaps even four named females, they could have named one of the dance girls, the waitress' friend, the movie could have had a chance to pass the Crystal Gems test.
I mean, if Marian's butler had been a housekeeper instead, and they had had the discussion about the salon being prepared, the movie would have passed Bechdel test :-D It wouldn't have been in any way unusual, inappropriate, disturbing, or odd, if a single woman living alone, had had a female "butler" instead of a male one. On the contrary. The butler did nothing that would have required a male for the role.

I don't even care if they had employed Jayne Mansfield or Joi Lansing as someone's girlfriend, and given her personality like Lina Lamont in Singin' in the Rain or Norma Cassidy in Victor Victoria.

I wish they had done more with Marian.

I wish Dean Martin didn't call every female "babe". I wish Robbo had called the women working for him their names instead of "Sweetheart".

There should have been more roles for colored people, and good roles.

Representation of marginalized groups.

Less stereotypical macho man roles for men. I seriously hate how Dean Martin always plays Frank's second and is all "Bros before hoes" guy.

Less sexualisation and objectification of women. OR more that of men to balance it out.

"They made him the Jean Harlow and Mickey Mouse"
Er... the movie is set to 1928. 
Mickey Mouse was created 1928, and Jean Harlow had her first major role 1930. 
Nobody knew who they were 1928.




March 12, 2020

Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) 👎

So... this movie passes all the most important tests, Bechdel, Sexy Lamp, Mako Mori, Molly Haskell... but is it feminist? Not at all.
Holly is "born sexy yesterday", "manic pixie dream girl" AND "damsel in distress". She is a sex worker, but could as well be a virgin.

V Bechdel test
One of the ladies ask the time and Holly finds out what time it is

V Mako Mori Test
It really is Holly's story

V Sexy Lamp Test
The female character cannot be replaced with a sexy lamp without it removing something essential from the story.

V The Crystal Gems Test

Now, there really are only two female characters in this movie, Holly and 2E, but only one really main male character, unless one counts mr Yunioshi... and I really don't want to. I think both ladies are complete characters, how ever light.

X F-Rating

X Sphinx Test

A woman has a primary role, but is she driving the action? Is she active? No. She is basically reacting all the time. She doesn't seem to have a plan, other than that of saving the money to buy a farm in Mexico, but she can't save. The story IS essential and has a huge impact on a wide audience, Holly isn't really stereotypical, but she is compelling, complex and multidimensional - in a way. In another way she is one of the first manic pixie dream girls, and as such she is very stereotypical... But that wasn't very common when this movie was made.  I really wouldn't say Holly is a feminist icon.

X The Feldman Score 3

Though... I don't know if there is a female protagonist who determines story outcomes. It seems more to be like the Writer happens to coincide with this Butterfly who fascinates him, and it's all very laisse faire what ever. No-one really determines the story outcomes. There is a female character who initiates sexual advances, Paul is basically 2E's boytoy. But - Holly is a victim and sexualized.

V Furiosa Test

Actually... it kind of did pass this in the 60s. People were offended by Paul being a "kept man", and that Holly had abandoned her husband, and was using the men.

V The Roxane Gay Test

The Maisy Test for sexism in kids' shows

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:

This is a man's story about a woman.
The crew is almost 100% male, the cast 1 woman to 2 men.
The first crowd scene is mostly men, until it gets so crowded it doesn't matter, then it's about 50/50.
Most talking roles go to men, anyone with anything important to say is a man. Men get to define and explain Holly to Paul. Most everything that is said is said to make the image of Holly more clear. She is obviously an object of observation here.

X The Uphold Test
X The Rees Davies Test
X The White Test
X The Hagen Test
X The Koeze-Dottle Test

X Gender Freedom:

Boys and girls do not get to do the same things. 2E kind of does her own thing, but she is the only one. There's plenty of girls who don't even seem to have much brains at all. Like Irving. Most females seem to be more or less sex workers.
All males have a very stereotypical male roles. Even 2E's boytoy.

X The Peirce Test
This is bit of a problem to me... Holly is a female character who is a protagonist with her own story... or is she? This is Paul's story, not Holly's. HE is the protagonist in this movie, and she is being observed. We aren't really telling Holly's story here, we are telling Paul's story, about the time he lived in the apartment above the one where Holly lived, and how he saw and experienced Holly.
I really don't think she has dimension and exist authentically with needs and desires that she pursues through dramatic action. A lot of dramatic action, but I get the feeling Holly is fleeing all the time. She keeps running, avoiding, fleeing, evading... she has all these masks and roles and stories... it's only in the end we see 10 minutes of the real human being behind it all, and then the movie ends... and there is nothing there to say that it doesn't go back to what it was. I sincerely can see no other outcome to Holly's story that she will be evicted when she's old and replaced by dozens of other girls, more attractive than she is, no-one will be paying her bills, and she will disappear in New York, and end her days as a bag lady somewhere... probably still loitering around Tiffany's. Sort of a female Fisher King. I don't see her as an active player with any power over her own life and destiny. A true phony. She isn't what she believes to be, but she believes it so strongly that everyone else believes it as well.
I really don't think the audience can empathize with or understand the female lead’s desires and actions

X The Villarreal Test

In the first scene of the movie, we see Holly get out of a taxi and then go eat her breakfast watching the things in Tiffany's window. She is dressed for party. So - she is not introduced as one of three common stereotypes in her first scene... that comes in her first lines. She is not shown to be in a position of authority or power, she is not a mother, she isn't really sexual either... sex is implied through the whole movie, she COULD still be virgin as far as we KNOW. Escorts don't necessarily have sex with her customers, and what we see is Holly escaping all her customers. She doesn't even kiss any of them. The closest we get to sex is when her ex-husband carries her into her apartment and closes the door after them. We know their marriage was annulled, so it's highly possible, even probable, that they didn't consummate it.

O The Landau Test
I suppose it passes - she doesn't end up dead, pregnant or... plot problem?

X The Tauriel Test

X The Willis Test

traditional gender roles

The gender roles are pretty traditional. Even Holly, who ran out of her traditional and expected role as a wife, to live high life in New York, is more or less a hapless character in need of rescuing and taking care of. She seems to me very weak and almost whiny, passive and reactive, doing what she is told by men, promising sexual favors for what she needs, be it mr Yunioshi opening the door for her, or money to pay her bills. She doesn't take care of the house, food, children, or things like that, but she is being pretty, arm candy, someone men want to be seen with.

Paul on the other hand, even though he is a writer who doesn't write and is supported by his sugar mommy, seems to be active, strong, independent person. I suppose Holly is more independent, but she gives an impression of being a vine.  We don't have a manchild, we have a womanchild. Innocent, gullible, as if she didn't realize that she is a sex worker.

X the MacGyver Test

This film doesn't show fathers, honest, hard-working men, (except perhaps Doc Golightly, who is sort of a hapless loser). There isn't much violence, but no problems either... on the other hand... Paul kind of pushes himself on Holly with the "You are mine" crap in the end. I don't see any MacGyver worthy male role models in this movie.

X the Raleigh Becket Test

X Kuku test

The males are pretty much disposable, act for women's benefit. Fathers aren't mentioned. Could be understood as fathers being disposable and inadequate. The movie doesn't relate everything negative to males and positive to females.
What about reversed? The females are pretty much disposable, taken advantage of by men.
Mothers aren't mentioned. Could be understood as mothers being disposable and inadequate. The movie doesn't relate everything negative to females and positive to males.

X Gender Safety:

She's an escort. Come on. But - no-one gets raped. She has to flee from unwanted attraction, mr Yunioshi seems to be expecting her to model nude - now, it's not said straight out, but that's the impression I get.
Children are not sexualized. Except that we find out she got married when she was 14. But - we don't know what happened in the marriage.

Age of primary and secondary actors?

Audrey Hepburn (Holly) 32
George Peppard (Paul) 33
Patricia Neal (2E) 35
Buddy Ebsen (Holly's husband) 53
José Luis de Vilallonga (José da Silva Pereira) 41

We are shown Audrey sleeping presumably naked, undressing, wearing a bathrobe, but not naked.
We are shown George sleeping presumably naked, naked upper body.
We are show a woman doing striptease, we are shown her naked back, but not front. When she starts her striptease, she is wearing a very tight gown
No children in this movie.

There is sexual objectification. Irving is just a thing. Holly is almost just a thing.

There is some sexual abuse. Holly is several times shown fleeing from unwanted attention and expectations, references enough to make it clear she's an escort, lot of insinuations.

Holly remarks on Paul's "keeper", and Paul gets offended.
The "break-up" is also ridiculous. He so obviously doesn't consider himself to be a kept man, so the idea of that Holly and Paul would be equal in their position as a sex worker is ridiculous. Frankly, it feels to me that Paul see 2E as his sponsor, a mecenate, whom he f*s just because he can, not that 2E is keeping him.
And I would say 2E was in love with him (which according to Paul meant that he belonged to her) and was hurt by Paul wanting to leave her for another woman. Even though he depended on her. It was kind of him telling her that he didn't love her and never had, that he had just f'd her because he could, and she could stuff her idea of that she had any claim on him.That part was very cruel in my mind, and makes me dislike Paul even more.


V Molly Haskell

Though, Holly is basically "born sexy yesterday", "manic pixie dream girl" AND "damsel in distress". She "belongs" to Paul.
"For a woman to "deserve" good things, she must fit into the "good woman" category. She must be innocent, dutiful, helpless, submissive, obedient, quiet and pretty. The "good" she deserves is the love of a man, the protection, and support of a man."
Well... Holly is innocent, like all animals are, helpless, pretty... in a way submissive, obedient and quiet. She does what is asked of her, if you just pay her, no questions asked. Sure, she's wild and can be loud and trash about, but... in a way that is just a wild bird flapping in panic. She is a girl child. And she deserves the love of the man, Paul, gives up her freedom and accepts belonging to him.

2E apparently has lady friends. Holly doesn't. She is set apart from other women in basically every possible way. She is exceptional, fascinating, special, above her colleagues in style, everyone thinks she is a socialite, even when it was made very clear already in the beginning of the movie that she is Lula Mae, a country girl.
The man in the movie is set up as the norm - he discusses freely with the other men, they treat him respectfully and openly, the women are sort of being observed, especially Holly, as if they were some sort of exotic animals, not really human beings.  There is a sort of camaraderie between men in this movie. They belong to the same club. Berman confides in Paul the first time they meet. Holly's husband does. Sally does. José da Silva Perreira trusts him from first meeting.

O.J.Berman says he made her. There are no female role models, parental figures, mentors in the movie.

This is pretty stereotypical; a man has a story about a woman who is all feelings. *sigh*

The theme of the movie is the struggle between being free and belonging, being wild and being safe. In my mind Holly is presented as something primitive, animal like, instinctive wild thing, but not a strong, powerful beast, more like a little bird or something furry and cute - in a way Paul rescues an injured stray and takes care of her. Holly is the cat, but she is a declawed cat. She might fight back, struggle, say mean things, but it's totally futile. Paul gets his way anyway.
Like - they have this wonderful day of doing things they haven't done before, it is implied they spend the night together, the next day Holly doesn't want to have anything to do with him, but he is all in love and assumes they will go steady now, that she belongs to him. He gets offended when she shuts him out.
And the thing is that Paul doesn't give Holly stability and safety. He isn't rich. He depends of 2E, and there is nothing in the movie that says he thinks giving it up. After all, 2E pays for the apartment. Is he going to move into Holly's apartment? Who is going to pay for it? So... he just weighs her down and binds her and puts her into a cage. Which is what she abhors.
Paul is seriously behaving like a petulant child. "It's not a cage because I love you!"

gender balanced cast: not in any way
Heavy emphasis on appearance. She became a style icon because of this movi. And she IS thin... also... "the queen of the pig people"? 
 
Jobs: men are businessmen, mobsters, lawyers, writers, women are wifes and sex workers

X Social Justice and Equality:

There are some oriental women, but there is mr. Yunioshi, with Mickey Rooney in yellowface as one of the most offensive stereotypical caricatures as a Japanese man.
I suppose José Luis de Vilallonga passes as Latino, even though he is Spanish and counts as white...
Disabled people? LGBTQ+? Different class backgrounds? Not really.
Does the show support equality? No. Social justice? No. Critique of power structures, consumerism, environmental exploitation, social exploitation? No. It is obviously about social exploitation, but it's... not critiquing it. It's basically saying "everyone is exploiting and exploited, so what?"

D The Representation Test

X The Vito Russo test

Well... In the book Paul was gay and Holly sort of bisexual. In the movie they are both straight. Now, GLBT people interpret some of the events in the movie as confirming Holly's lesbian tendencies, like the way she looked at the striptease show. I don't see it, but I am straight, so what do I know.

X Kent test
X Aila test
X The Waithe Test
XThe Ko Test 
X The Villalobos Test
X The Deggans Test
V The Shukla Test

"two ethnic minorities talk to each other for more than five minutes about something other than race"
The Asian women are talking about something in Chinese (I assume. Could be some other language. And I don't know what they are talking about. Could be race.


X The Latif Test


3 Breakfast at Tiffany's Problems No-one Ever Talks About
Breakfast at Tiffany's: a Feminist Critique



Now, people have been asking why Mickey Rooney's yellowface is such a problem. For example Jack Marshall in Ethics Alarms in Ethics, Stereotypes and Holly Golightly

Why the Asian character in Edwards’ film is more offensive than the stereotypical nerds in the hit TV show “Big Bang Theory"?
Because the Asians are a minority in our society. I am not OK with the stereotypical nerds in the hit TV show "Big Bang Theory" either. There's also a lot more problems there than "stereotypical nerds". The whole show is a big can of worms most people don't dare to criticize because it is popular.

Why the Asian character in Edwards’ film is more offensive than the stereotypical Jewish and WASP characters in Woody Allen movies?
Woody Allen is Jewish.
WASPs are the majority and everyone knows enough WASPS to recognize a stereotype when they see it, whereas most white people don't know many POC to be able to recognize a stereotype and caricature, or not to be influenced by it. (That is, we white people (And everyone, basically) know "not all white people" are like that, but we don't know enough colored people to know they are not like "that")

Why the Asian character in Edwards’ film is more offensive than the stereotypical black buffoons in Tyler Perry movies?
Tyler Perry is black

"Who has decreed that “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” intends Rooney’s cartoonish portrayal as a critical commentary on anyone but Truman Capote’s fictional Japanese character?"

Has someone decreed that? And are people protesting because it's a "critical commentary" on someone? I don't think so. I think people are protesting because it's an offensive racial caricature, AND yellowfacing. Mickey Rooney, a well paid Hollywood star, took the job from some struggling actor. There were plenty of real Japanese actors available in Hollywood and every one of them would have made a better portrayal of a Japanese man than Mickey Rooney.

But, let's look at it.
1) He is the only Asian man in the movie. There are a couple of Asian women in Holly's party, dressed in a very typical Asian dresses, they look like they have been flown in straight from Hong Kong. Why aren't they dressed like every other woman in the room?
2) Rooney's cartoonish portrayal is an exact copy of the caricature Japanese of 30s, 40s, 50s... It is pretty much perfect. Every adult watching this movie recognizes him immediately. He isn't depicting some random fictional character from a book, he is depicting The Jap.

3) He further cements the preconceived notions by not speaking proper English.
4) What Truman Capote wrote is different from this.

"Why, in “Gone Witth the Wind,” is Butterfly McQueen’s idiotic “Prissy” sufficient to have that film labeled racist, despite Hattie McDaniel’s “Mammie” in the same movie, arguably the most admirable character in the story?"
It doesn't matter how admirable her character was. Besides, Melanie Wilkes was the most admirable character in the story. Mammy was a caricature who behaved like white folks in 1939 expected black women to behave. Prissy and Mammy are equally racist, Prissy being the symbol of all the negative qualities black women were believed to have, Mammy of all the positive ones, but they were both caricatures. Even the fact that Hattie McDaniel got an Oscar for the performance was sort of an insult... it was kind of telling all the black people that THIS is what you are supposed to be, be a "good girl" and you'll get rewarded. Brrr.

"Would Rooney’s portrayal be acceptable if the actor was Japanese?"
No. But at least if a Japanese actor had played mr Yunioshi, Mickey Rooney wouldn't have taken the job from someone who needed it more.

"“Long Duck Dong,” the comic Chinese exchange student in “Sixteen Candles” played by an Asian actor, is easily as stereotypical a comic portrayal as Rooney’s Mr.Yunioshi, but it is still funny, and so far, nobody has called for boycotts of that John Hughes classic."
Yet a lot of people have reacted to it, and condemn it as racist and offensive.

The co-founders of the Asian American popular culture magazine Giant Robot, Martin Wong and Eric Nakamura, said before Sixteen Candles, students of Asian descent in the United States were often nicknamed "Bruce Lee". After Sixteen Candles, they were nicknamed "Donger" after Long Duk Dong. Wong said, "If you're being called Long Duk Dong, you're comic relief amongst a sea of people unlike you." Nakamura said, "You're being portrayed as a guy who just came off a boat and who's out of control. It's like every bad stereotype possible, loaded into one character." In addition to being called "Donger", the students were taunted with quotes of the character's lines in poor English such as "Oh, sexy girlfriend."
As this is basically what happened with Charlie Chan as well. People taunting any Asian person they see by quoting stupid lines from the movies - and I'm sure this is what happened with mr Yunioshi as well. "This time I'm warning you! I am definitely, this time going to be carring the porice!"

"Marilyn Monroe is a stereotype in “The Seven Year Itch”; 

Yes, and every blonde woman can tell you why that isn't a good thing

"in “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” Cate Blanchett plays a Russian Communist right out of “Rocky and Bullwinkle.” 

Indiana Jones movies are classical adventure stories where everybody is a caricature, but they are also seen as be offensive.

"Mel Brooks’ Western spoof “Blazing Saddles” ends with a sound stage full of  flaming queens, slap-fighting cowboys while they do synchronized swimming routines."

"Flaming queens"? Mel Brooks is famous for making fun of everything and everyone. People expect that when they go watch Mel Brooks movie. But - that scene especially is considered offensive and cringe worthy as well. And Mel Brooks was told to leave it out from the movie. It would have been better.

"So what?"

How are racial stereotypes harmful? If you need to ask, you really should research the issue.

The short of it is: stereotypes and caricatures are harmful, because people believe in them, and then they treat people according to these beliefs.

"The usual argument against stereotype comedy is that it is a form of cultural bullying, using unattractive portrayals to keep minorities in a subservient and oppressed status, ridiculed by the power-wielding majority. Somehow, I don’t think the Chinese who hold America’s financial obligations and the Asians who are dominating our colleges are threatened any by Mickey Rooney wearing false teeth and goofy glasses."

The Chinese who hold America's financial obligations are not an American cultural minority.
The "Asians who are dominating our colleges" - 60% of college students are white.
And might be that today's Asian American are more harmed by more modern racist stereotypes than this one, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable.

"The most egregious comic stereotypes in popular culture right now are white, middle class males. The fat, moronic fathers in “The Simpsons” and “The Family Guy” make Mr.Yunioshi seem like Cary Grant."

White, middle class males have plenty of material to identify with. Almost half of all the actors working in television shows right now are white and male. There's plenty of white, middle class fathers to pick, if Homer and Peter feel offensive. Except that if you think Asian people shouldn't feel offended by mr Yunioshi, you don't have any reason to feel offended by how white men are being portrayed.

"There is no end to the kind of cultural censorship Ursula Liang is advocating."
You are wrong, there.
Firstly, she isn't asking for censorship. She is asking people to boycott the screening. She isn't asking for banning the movie, or that all the copies of the movie be destroyed.
Secondly, Movies with a View is partially financed by public funds from the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs. What people watch in their own homes is one thing, what is shown to a public on tax payers money is something different.
Thirdly, this movie's cultural value is seriously not that big. USA has created hundreds of classic movies, and many of them are better than Breakfast at Tiffany's. I don't see anyone missing anything if they never saw the movie (except the cringe worthy racist yellowface act Mickey Rooney defended still 2008. "Everyone always tells me I was so funny!").

"Now it only serves as an interesting reminder of how American attitudes have changed, and an oddity, as well as fodder for debates over the use of stereotypes in drama. "
It doesn't though... I know people defending offensive material often say things like that, but it never happens. Like, there is a museum of mammy things, and the owner defends it by saying that "it's an important part of the American cultural heritage and we have to keep it so that people know about how offensive it is", yet you don't even know it is offensive. And considering that there's 20 years between mr Yuniuchi and Long Duck Dong, considering what you wrote, and what the comments to this say, I don't think the American attitudes have changed that much.
And, really, there is no need to debate the use of stereotypes. It's harmful. Just stop it. End of discussion.

"As always, there’s an elegant and effective remedy for Laing and anyone else who find Rooney’s portrayal objectionable. They can go see another movie."
So you do not find Rooney's portrayal objectionable after all. 

They couldn't go see another movie. SYFY Movies with the View showed only one movie each night. Going to see another movie would have meant missing the event. Like offering to buy the whole room dinner, but only as long as they eat seafood. Allergic? Go to another restaurant.

"five minutes of out-dated burlesque from Mickey Rooney"

Well... considering that it is just five minutes, it's out-dated, and you call it a "cringe-worthy scar on an otherwise marvelous film" and that it doesn't belong there, let's cut it out alltogether. Or... let's edit the movie and put in a real Japanese actor who doesn't speak broken English, but acts as a real Japanese American photographer in New York back in 1961 would have acted, without the mockery of Japanese culture.

October 4, 2019

Cat People (1982) 👎

First of all I want to say that this is nasty and icky. Nastassia was only 21 and now we know she was sexually abused by her father when she was a kid. She doesn't like being touched my Malcolm McDowell... So...I cannot possibly let this movie pass Maisy test. Yuck.

Also, there animal abuse. A LOT OF IT. So much so that I'm nauseous. I can't believe they kept animals in those tiny showcases still in the 80s. And that black panther is so scared. So fucking scared.





V Bechdel test
V Mako Mori Test

O Sexy Lamp Test

Frankly, I don't know... can she? I kind of think she could be just a sexy lamp, and it would still be the same.

X The Crystal Gems Test

There is basically four major characters, and half of them are females.
It passes Bechdel test, Mako Mori test, and... er... does it pass the sexy lamp test? How can it pass Mako Mori but not the sexy lamp?
So... Irena speaks with other women. Alice speaks with other women. Female speaks with other women.
Irena could be a sexy lamp. Alice... maybe. Female? No. Is it enough that Female passes the sexy lamp test for the movie to pass it? Because the main character might not...
Irena has a story, Alice... er... Female? Yeah... but... hmm...
"It has to be a clear pass". So I suppose it's a no.

X F-Rating

X Sphinx Test
Rotten Tomatoes 61% - IMDb 6.1

X The Feldman Score 
I think it got 0 points. MAYBE 1, if I'm being nice.

X Furiosa Test

X Gender Balance - Gender Representation:


X The Uphold Test

X The Rees Davies Test

X The White Test

V The Hagen Test

X The Koeze-Dottle Test

X The Peirce Test

V The Villarreal Test

X The Landau Test

X The Tauriel Test

X The Willis Test

O the MacGyver Test

X the Raleigh Becket Test

V Kuku test

X Molly Haskell:

There's sacrifice. She gives up life as a human being to save Oliver, and he gets to fuck her, too!
There's affliction. She has this terrible curse, which condemns her to live her life alone as an animal, but luckily she has her moment, being fucked while tied up. Because he loves her. Yeah, sure.
There's the triangle drama. She and Alice want the same man.
There is the "born sexy yesterday" trope
She doesn't have any friends. I thought Alice would be her friend, but no, she's just jealous. I thought Female would be her friend, but she was Paul's friend.
She is set apart from other women, as this exceptional and special magical creature, who is even exceptional and special as a magical creature, because she is innocent and pure and good.

She is portrayed as romantic, frail, innocent and beautiful.
But she eats.

There is a woman who isn't romantically connected or related to a male character. Female. (No, that's her name. It's pronounced "Fay-muh-leh".) Frankly, she was the only "real" person in the whole movie. Her interaction with Malcolm McDonald was very nice. Best part of the whole movie.

X Gender Bias Without Borders

V Gender Freedom:

X Gender Safety:

Are body shapes healthy and realistic? No.
Is everyone safe? No.
Are boys and girls treated respectfully? No.
Is the show free from the sexualization of children, objectification, unrealistic body standards and misogyny?
Sexualization of children, yes. Because Nastassia Kinski was 21, and that's an adult. It doesn't much matter that her male coactors were almost twice as old. 

lots of nudity. And one of the nude ones, the nudest of them all, was also the youngest, Nastassia - 21. Twenty-one.

The scene in the bus was icky, with the guy staring at her. Objectification.
And why is she wearing that top that's practically see-through?
sexual innuendos
unwanted attention, comments on her looks - now, it's noted that that's asshole-y behavior, but - unnecessary. And then Alice goes on asking these sex questions, when she's obviously not comfortable about it. (And later Alice says "her type will always be fine". Her type. So, she knows she is virgin and obviously uncomfortable about sex and such things, but men are attracted to her, so she's a whore.)
And what's with those supertiny highcut shorts and wading boots? And of course she has to bend down.

nudity of both sexes. Except that he is very carefully cut at the navel, she is shown fully naked.
We also have plenty of lingerie scenes and bare breasts.

"lacking autonomy"... she moves to live with her brother. Then they for some reason just have to "discover" that the brother is a serial killer using the leopard as a weapon. "Because the dog went wild". Yeah, sure... that will certainly give you a warrant. The dog went wild.
For some reason she is homeless. No, they can not give her protection to catch a serial killer, no, she has to find a new home. The guy "will fix it". Obviously she moves in with him.
She tries to leave and he stops her and basically forces her back. 
She goes to beg the housekeeper to tell her what to do. She refuses.
Then she goes and buys a train ticket and he follows and gets her back.
Also, during their first date, he just grabs her coke and pours it into a glass as if she was a kid. (Also, she says she doesn't eat meat, so he takes her to an oyster bar. *sigh*)
She doesn't have any thoughts, feelings, opinions or voice either. She likes animals. She likes drawing. Frankly, I agree with Alice about he being interested in her just because she is sexy. Which seems to be her only quality. "This is Irena" "She's mighty pretty". Not even hello.
And in the end she becomes a panther at the fucking animal prison with the caravan sized cages and cattle prods. Silent, beautiful, owned...

And when he ties her up he's deliberately hurting her... and just think how tightly the leopard will be tied up. More animal abuse.
And absolutely no foreplay.

And what's with the pool scene? There just so we get to see Annette O'Toole's breasts?

X Social Justice and Equality:

Oh, yes, there's even a fat woman in the movie! Gets a scene with John Heard!

No... seriously... who thought that was a good idea? There's also a circus seal on that mobile, and a circus tent. And probably other figures as well. Did they really sell that at New Orleans Zoo back at 84? And some people bought it? Seriously?

Can every kid see someone like them? No
Does this show support social justice and equality in other ways? No.
Are people of color represented or is the cast all-white? Yes.
Is there any representation of other marginalized groups: disabled people, LGBTQ+ folks, different class backgrounds? No. Oh, well... there's this whore and the hotel congierce, whom, I suppose, could be said to represent "other marginalized groups and different class backgrounds".
Are children encouraged by the plots and characters to critique power structures, consumerism, environmental and social exploitation? No. Even animal preservation is presented as a shitty business.

B The Representation Test
Which says that this Representation Test doesn't really say much about the movie... Yes, it has good roles (well... acceptably good) for black people, and the MC is a woman. YAY! Not.

X The Vito Russo test

Does the film contain a character that is identifiably LGBT, and is not solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as tied into the plot in such a way that their removal would have a significant effect?

X Kent test

Well... There is a black woman in this movie, who isn't a walking stereotype/trope, who has her own narrative arc... or sort of... but... is she there to "hold down" some male character or to "prop up" the white female character? I'm not sure I understand the meaning of those terms. She isn't fetished. She doesn't interact with other black females. She interacts with a black male, though. But this male is a police who is there to question and arrest her and she goes to prison. And basically for the crimes of the white male. So - er... It doesn't much matter that she was a friend, a housekeeper and an accomplish, does it?

X Aila test

O The Waithe Test

V The Ko Test

X The Villalobos Test

X The Deggans Test

Not really, no... there is two black characters among the first 10 characters mentioned at IMDb; Female and Detective Brandt, but Detective Brandt isn't really a main character.

X The Shukla Test

They talk about crime - one is a detective questioning the other about a crime... but I don't think it lasts five minutes.

V The Latif Test
 Except that I don't know if Female is a magic stock character... Maybe she is.

So... how could it be better? 

In every possible way.


The Pajama Game 👎

 I remember watching this when I was little, like 12 or so, and I thought it was fun and entertaining. Now, 35 years later... not so much. I...