I don’t really want to incite another Finchergate, but I mean: I FEEL YR FEELS, MARU. I DO.
In short, [American Psycho] observes a sociopath through the female gaze, and in the process isn’t afraid to undercut the violence so favored by men, and focus instead on the pathology behind Bateman’s behavior. It strips the male ego bare, reveals what’s crawling around underneath, and best of all, doesn’t go about it at the expense of female characters. Quite the opposite. it allows us to see what they really think of him.
Marie Haws, “A psychopath and the Female Gaze”
This particular Feminist Film editor is actually pro-David Fincher because he directed this best music video OF ALL TIME, which is unquestionably his greatest work and also a pretty sophisticated commentary on gender, representation, capitalism, and bodies.
George Michael - “FREEDOM! ‘90”
This has been Feminist Writing.
charmanderinchief said: Yes, while the poster was sexist, and I'm still in the dark on whether or not you've seen the film, there was absolutely nothing sexy about either the rape scene or the revenge scene. It was dark, brutal and in no way desensitizing us to violence towards women. Yes, you must take into account the fact that Fincher did make Salander much sexier than she is described in the books, but the message is there and the work is there. It really helps us rethink how women are sexualized in the media.
hastapura said: How is that Dragon Tattoo teaser poster sexist? Because she's topless? Fincher's version actually makes Salander deeper and more interesting. Shouldn't you judge the film by the film itself? And Fincher's been working with well-written women since Alien 3 - that is, his first film.
1. Yes, because she’s topless
2. That is exactly what I said in that post that you are mad about: lots of people are, in fact, arguing that the film does a pretty good job of developing Salander’s character in spite of the sexist advertising and we at Feminist Film totally accept that and it’s cool
3. But, for the love of God, will someone please explain to me what kind of heuristic “judging the film by the film itself” is? First of all, this isn’t a film review blog, this is a feminist blog which deals with film. Even if it was a review blog, I still think that “judging the film by the film itself” is theoretically and methodologically weak.
4. Fincher isn’t bad, but he isn’t great
5. But he does not get credit for Ellen Ripley. That is crossing the line, dog.
hardcoregrrrl-deactivated201206 said: You said you refused to support Dragon Tattoo. It's out now and it's polar opposite of what many people assumed in June. While a lot of feminists won't care for the revenge scene, and the rape scene was really hard to take, it was a great movie in deconstructing the idea of a vulnerable woman who needs saving. But good idea in judging the movie on a poster that came out 6 mos before its release. Judge a book by it's cover much?
(In reference to this post.)
I guess I thought “not giving money to institutions that objectify women in order to sell shit if you don’t want to” was like Liberal Feminism 101, sry.
I understand that a lot of people were pleasantly surprised with Fincher’s adaptation*, especially given that his record of not-sexist-movies is, while not terrible, somewhat spotty. Still, I don’t think that “assuming David Fincher’s adaptation of Dragon Tattoo will be sexist” is a case of “judging a book by its cover” as much as, maybe, “judging a book by its contents, which many argue are exploitative of rape victims” or “judging a film by its director, who has a history of making adaptations which strip women of their autonomy” or, you know, “judging a film by its production staff who thought it was a good idea to sexualize a rape victim in order to advertise.” I would hate to be responsible for the latter earning a paycheck.
For the record, I don’t think the books are anti-feminist, and I think that it’s really interesting that Larsson wrote a rape revenge novel because he felt bad that he had been complicit in a woman’s rape when he was a teenager. But, like, am I supposed to praise his estate? Because they are making shit fucking tons of money off this girl’s experience. Can someone prove to me that they are giving that money back to survivors? Because they should be.
*See Catherine A. Traywick at Ms., Emma Gray at Huffington Post, and since I’m aggregating aggregates, I’d also recommend Dodai Stewart’s “An Unabridged List of Words Used to Describe Lisbeth Salander" at Jezebel. I would also suggest s.e. smith’s piece at Bitch if you’re interested in a reading of the books as feminist works.
Also, back to Feminism 101: A book with a sexist cover is still a sexist book. That’s how this works.
We encourage you guys to write reviews of the film and submit them to us. I sure as hell am not wasting my money on it, at least not until it comes to Family Video.
TW: sexual assault