posted 11.28.00
KAW535@aol.com writes:

Subject: Meet the Parents

TAKE A PROZAC AND GET SOME THERAPY, DID YOU HAVE A BAD DAY?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

And did you think that SHOUTING would make me feel better?

KAW535@aol.com replies:

sorry , i forgot that capitalized meant shouting! i dont think you saw the same movie as us. it was no academy award winner, but it was what it was, a comedy

The Flick Filosopher responds:

It was a comedy only if you find utter humiliation funny. I don't.

KAW535@aol.com replies:

im sorry if you were picked on as a child.....

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Weren't we all? And what does that have to do with anything?

KAW535@aol.com again:

its a Freudian think, after you made the link to utter humiliation, i knew your reference had to come from deep inside your past, in the end the character was rightfully vindicated . ie; a happy ending at no-ones expense

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Wow. All the money I've spent on shrinks, trying to figure out precisely what my problem is, and you nailed it via an email diagnosis. You must be a wonderful doctor. I could have saved a fortune if I'd come to you first.

KAW535@aol.com again:

Thank you, you've sparked my curiosity.....indulge me with some non-personal vitals, IM trying to visualize this battered soul on the other end of this cold lifeless phone line....your friend, in this cold uncaring world

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I was joking. I'm not a battered soul. I'm not seeing a shrink. I have no need for a shrink.

What on Earth are nonpersonal vitals? Aren't my vitals by definition personal?

KAW535@aol.com, clueless:

than why do you have such a hard outer shell?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Who says I do? How can you say something like that about someone you've never met?

Just because I don't share your sense of humor does not mean I'm a psychiatric case. Sheesh.

KAW535@aol.com again:

have a good life....

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I do. Thanks. Same to you.

KAW535@aol.com again:

thank you

posted 11.28.00
Ryan Brown writes:

Subject: Meet the Bad Movie

I couldn't agree with you anymore. Your assessment of Meet the Parents was dead on. I watched in amazment as the crowd lit up to the same insignificant trash humor that has become commonplace in Hollywood. Luckily, there are still some movie makers that know the "good stuff". I also agree that Stiller is not at fault for this role; you do what pays, whether your a garbage man of an actor. Ahh... but I do miss The Ben Stiller Show. Anyone who has ever seen the sketch about the Vietnam Vet School Teacher, and doesn't think it's the funniest damn thing ever, needs smelling salts.

posted 11.28.00
SD writes:

I would have to say that I agree with your outlook on Meet the Parents. The thing that bothered me the most was the belittling of Stiller's Character's chosen profession and religion. I found myself cringing more than laughing at anything. The laughs were cheap gags at best. The only high point to the film was the broken nose volleyball scene, unfortunately it was aimed at the wrong character and solved nothing. The abscence of any real triumph for Stiller's character at the end of the film was really disappointing. If they were going to go with this formula of screwing up and then rebuilding, they should have made it more of an over-the-top redemption.

In regards to Flirting with Disaster, its story line was ten times stronger and more interesting than Parents, plus the casting was superb.

posted 11.28.00
Trevor Friesen writes:

How come the only bad review written about Meet the Parents seem to be women? Does it hit close to home? Or is it that you simply can't put yourself in a male's shoes? This movie made an entire theatre laugh so hard they almost fell out of their chairs last night, so it is curious to me how you and a handful of other women meet it with such disgust. It's almost like the insecure woman that watched American Beauty and hated it and Annette Benning with a passion, not just a little.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

My God! I've been trying to figure it out, and you've hit it spot on the nose: the movie hit too close to home for me. I thought I had suppressed the memory of that time I went to meet my girlfriend's parents and her dad turned out to be a psychotic CIA agent who hated me, but I guess I hadn't. Wow. Thanks. I feel so much better now.

In all seriousness, I don't think it's a gender thing: I've gotten mail from men agreeing with my review. But since you obviously seem to think this is a guy movie, perhaps you can explain to me why (some) men think degradation and humiliation of another man, for no purpose beyond his degradation and humiliation, is so uproarious.

Trevor Friesen replies:

First of all, you still sound defensive. Second, it's not the degradation and humilitation of another man that is so funny in this movie. Meeting a woman's parents for the first time is somewhat stressful for men, partly because we have the tendency to fear the worst. Seeing how the worst actually unfolds is funny becasue we know it would never happen, and it is relief. The women in the theatre that thought it was funny could see the flip side to every time they have brought a date home to meet their parents. I'm sorry you couldn't.

By the way, just to give you a little eye opener here - Remember those cranky old people that criticized the things you thought were just great when you were young? And you hated those people because you wanted them to just loosen up and appreciate something that wasn't "Oscar worthy" and didn't want to be? I just think when you hear yourself say "this is not funny because it is blatant degradation of the poor guy that had his luggage lost" in a theatre full of people choking on their popcorn because they are laughing so hard, you are bitter about something.

Anyway, I'm glad I helped you figure it out.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

First of all, you sound defensive, too. And what's wrong with defending your opinions, anyway?

Second, it's not the degradation and humiliation per se that bothers me, it's that it doesn't serve any brand of comedy beyond insipid slapstick. There is no satire here, no insight into human nature, no exploration of our society, all things that the best and funniest comedy does. I don't like slapstick, and that doesn't make me bitter or nasty or angry or anything but unable to laugh at pratfalls. I need an intellectual component to my humor, and Meet the Parents doesn't cut it for me. I realize I'm in the minority here, but I reserve the right to rant about it.

Thanks for bringing up the "old fart" argument -- I was wondering when someone would get around to accusing me of being a humorless old coot (at the ripe old age of 31) in regards to this movie, and congratulations: you're the first.

Trevor Friesen again:

If it's not degradation that bothers you, why did you say it was in your first response? As for the next few lines of your reply, I can't believe what I am reading! No insight into human nature? No exploration of our society? Maybe you just don't see it because it isn't packaged how you're used to. You don't think meeting a woman's parents is one of the major rites in a meaningful relationship? Maybe not at 31, but for most of the dating population it is. And what about the human nature to try and develop a peaceful relationship with someone you hate for the ulterior motive of keeping another one stable? Again, this isn't as big a deal for women, but in our culture it truly is for a man. If you're going to be a reviewer for everyone, you should be able to see from someone else's perspective, rather than just your own. You seem like a very smart and somewhat rational (although self centered) person, so I think you should know that.

I think it's fine that you don't like slapstick, which is what you simply should have said at the begining, and I would have left you alone. But then I could skip your review of any other slapstick movie that is coming up. If you don't like it, then tell your supervisor you don't wan't to review it anymore. I hate rap music, and I would never write a review on it because it would simply read, "It sucks ass" for every new CD.

I'll leave you alone now, because you have pegged yourself as someone that dislikes an entire genre of film, which again, makes me wonder why in the hell you even reviewed this movie in the first place. But you have basically said there will never be a good slapstick movie ever, which is false, and I think justifies my first mail. You sound puzzled in your review at why Robert DeNiro took this part. Did you ever stop to ponder that maybe actors don't refuse movies because you don't like them?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Oh, where to start? Go back and look at my first letter. See the part that says "for no purpose beyond his degradation and humiliation"? I qualified it. And then I had to explain it, because you didn't get what I was saying.

Please tell me what insight into human nature Meet the Parents offers. Simply saying that meeting the parents is a tough thing, and that this is demonstrated by flying shit, volleyballs in the face, abused cats, psychotic dads, and so on, doesn't cut it. And if meeting the parents shouldn't be an upsetting thing for me, at 31, what about the Ben Stiller character? He's around my age.

This movie is absurd, and not in a good way. Ben's luggage is lost by the airline. Does he run to the Gap for a change of clothes? No, and for no reason except that the filmmakers want to make him out to be a fool by putting him in the little brother's hip-hop clothes. There's no excuse for this kind of plot contrivance except lazy writing.

Who says I'm a reviewer for everyone? How could any reviewer be a reviewer for everyone? It is not possible to be objective when you're talking about things like movies -- if it were, we'd just have a Consumer Reports for movies that would give you the objective rundown on a film, and there'd be no need for critics who discuss things from all sorts of perspectives. What I have to offer in a field crowded with voices is my unique, subjective point of view. If you find yourself disagreeing with me more often than not, you don't have to read me. As you pointed out, there are plenty of critics you'll find agreeing with you on this movie.

Ah, but there's a compliment buried in your letter, and you don't even realize it. My supervisor? I wish -- that would imply that I was getting paid for my reviews. Dude, this here is a one-woman operation, not one backed by some dot-com comglom. That you got the impression that my site is a big operation is a huge thrill. Thank you.

Oh, and I review crappy movies because they're SO much fun to write about, and since there is no millionaire backer of my site, I figure I'm entitled to have a little fun if I'm not making any dough.

Trevor Friesen again:

You're welcome for the compliment, the site looks great.

posted 11.28.00
Goobygoobygooby@cs.com writes:

Your'e one of the reasons that no one trusts a critic's opinion about movies. Your review about Meet the Parents was way off. It may not possess the structure of a "great movie", but do any?

The Flick Filosopher responds:

If you don't trust critics, then why are you reading my reviews?

posted 11.28.00
Ryan Lee writes:

I read your review of Meet the Parents (and comparison with Flirting with Disaster). I'll preface my comments by saying I really like Ben Stiller. I thought his show was great (and sadly short-lived) and I thought Flirting with Disaster and Zero Effect were good movies. I also thought Meet the Parents was very funny. I suggest you go back and watch Flirting again. To suggest Flirting did not resort to "sitcomish buffoonery" is absurd. In Flirting, was there or was there not a scene in which Stiller's character knocked over a glass shelving/trinket collection in one of his potential mother's home? There was. Was there a scene where a big rig knocked over a small wooden house? I think there was. Was there a scene where character in the movie was dosed with LSD and another hit over the head with a frying pan? There was. If you think about it, Stiller has made his career playing the straight man, earnest and eager-to-please thrust into situations where he is surrounded by quirky characters. (Even in his show, there were puppets cop show, spoofs of the show "Cops," etc. and even had Stiller playing himself in between skits as an insecure, idealist.)

Granted, many parts of Parents involved contrived plot devices. But what comedies don't ? (You thought the plot of Flirting was believable? Gimme a break). Flirting's themes involving identity (as you discussed in your review of Parents) were undoubtedly more complex and high-minded than those is Parents, but the anxiety felt by Stiller's character in Parents is real as anyone in that situation knows. Now maybe physical and low-brow humor doesn't appeal to you. That's fine, but that doesn't make you smarter than anyone else, which seems to be the implication of your article -- the unthinking and unintelligent masses are entertained by repeated use of the name "Focker." Perhaps you should lighten up a bit. Why does this movie offend you so much? Whatever the reason, pointing to Flirting as some sort of higher ideal is being overly-generous to Flirting. In theme, Meet the Parents is much more akin to Flirting with Disaster than There's Something About Mary and all three contain the "sitcomish buffoonery" that so offends you.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

The difference between what you call the buffoonery of Flirting with Disaster and what I call the buffoonery of Meet the Parents is character. When someone gets hit over the head with a frying pan in Flirting, it springs from everything we know about the hitter and the hittee, and no other characters in the film could have filled their shoes -- no one else could have hit that other character over the head. When someone gets hit in the nose with a volleyball in Parents, it's purely for the purposes of getting a laugh from an audience that finds the embarrassment of the main character amusing. Similarly, there's no purpose to having the entire family of the fiancee get splattered with shit except, again, for a cheap laugh. It makes no sense within the context of the story -- the Owen Wilson character is supposed to be perfect, so he shouldn't be the one who is responsible for the splattering, but he is. That's the definition of "sitcom": situation comedy. The situation takes precedence over character to the point where character is just about nonexistent.

Meet the Parents offends me because it appeals to the lowest, most juvenile instincts of the mass audience, which rewards it phenomenally by making it a box office hit. I'm appalled that so many supposedly grownup people have not yet mentally left 7th grade. If that makes me a snob who needs to "lighten up," so be it. I just think any adult still laughing at poopy jokes should be embarrassed.

Ryan Lee replies:

Now we're splitting hairs...The distinction you make doesn't change the fact that both movies rely on the audience's juvenile instincts for its humor. Unintentionally knocking over a shack with a truck is funny -- character development or no character development. Laughing at a shit joke does not preclude one from being a fully matured adult (a "grownup"). It's just laughing at a shit joke. Free yourself -- laugh when you want to laugh, not when you think it properly reflects your maturity level. Listen to your juvenile instincts once in awhile -- it's okay, I won't tell anyone. Remains of the Day will still be waiting for you when yer done.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I do laugh when I want to laugh -- I don't see the point in restraining myself. But I've grown up past the point at which I find poop or farts funny.

Ryan Lee again:

I guess I haven't...but I don't think I'm stupid or emotionally underdeveloped either. oh, what about milking cats? Wasn't that a little funny????

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Not particularly. My comedy needs to be either grounded in reality or totally disconnected from reality: I need either Flirting with Disaster or Monty Python. MTP wants to be both. It doesn't work for me.

posted 11.28.00
Tom Murphy writes:

Boy, did you take this movie too seriously! Meet the Parents is a comedy that exaggerates situations. It is not suppose to be taken as a realistic look at life. I could relate alot to some of the situations Greg found himself in when I first met my future in-laws. There is always that feeling of insecurity. I will grant you that comedy is in the eye of the beholder. For example, I thought Flirting with Disaster was a complete dud. I did not laugh once during the film. You said that the director uses biting humor to explore a wide variety of issues from neurosis to keeping a family a family. When I see a comedy, I don't want a lecture in psychology. I want to laugh and Meet the Parents did that.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

When I see a comedy, I want to laugh, too. Meet the Parents just made me cringe.

posted 11.28.00
Rogelio P. Mendoza writes:

Subject: Caddyshack

There you go--bringing class into it again.

After all, strange candy bars floating around in swimming pools have absolutely no basis for intelligent social commentary. Supreme political power derives from the masses--and lost ballot boxes in Florida--not from some farcial aquatic ceremony. If I was to go around and pronounce myself a deep and serious critic of the American class system because some silly teenager threw a Baby Ruth at me, they'd put me away. On the other hand, I might come across a lot saner than that silly political scholar who bragged about his white-red-and-blue necktie on Election Night.

Oh, well. Up with people. Down with er-bad things. Go, Go--er--Bus--er--whoever. Apparently, after all this time, Sir Humphrey is still the real architect of the American political system. Yes, Minister and sequel still pack a kick that Primary Colors and Wag the Dog could have really used. Maybe the late Paddy C. had it right. Maybe we have meddled with the primal forces of nature. That might explain why American political satire has gone downhill since we started taking the real-life equivalent of Network's Ned Beatty character seriously.

Oops! There I go, bringing the crass into it again. Bloody peasants!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Actually, strange candy bars floating around in swimming pools have a lot to do with intelligent social commentary. The Baby Ruth scene in Caddyshack plays off human hangups about our bodily functions -- and how different classes react to that -- in a way neither Meet the Parents nor There's Something About Mary can ever hope to achieve. The candy bar bit is funny because we know that it's a candy bar, yet we also what everything in the movie thinks it is -- we laugh at them because we have knowledge they don't, and the scene peaks with Bill Murray finding the candy bar at the bottom of the drained pool, sniffing it, and eating it. The matronly, WASPy lady who watches him, horrified, represents the upper class for whom toilet functions and other normal human things are too disgusting to discuss in polite company. Murray's character is the slob for whom shit, literally and figuratively, is a normal, all-too-prevalent fact of life.

Compare that with the scene in Meet the Parents in which the wedding party preparations are ruined by an overflowing septic tank and the splattering of the bride's family with liquified shit. There's absolutely nothing going on here except the director thinking (unfortunately, justifiably) that he can get a laugh by splatting his cast with shit. This scene does nothing except underline the fact, one that I think most people would agree with, that no one likes to be splattered in shit. Imagine how that scene could have gone: A vat of, oh, chocolate filling for the wedding cake is spilled, and THAT gets splattered on everyone. If they all thought it was shit, then the bit would have been funny, because it would have played off the human disgust of excrement by showing how quickly the reaction can be raised in people, even when it is not justified. Then, to continue the motif of the Ben Stiller character as classless idiot, he could have been the one to wipe a gob of the dark, disgusting stuff on his finger, sniff it, and taste it. Gross: He eats shit. Or is he merely the one able to overcome an instinctive reaction and discover that he's wrong?

But there I go, getting all thinky again.

posted 11.28.00
Bonnie Black writes:

Subject: AN EAGLE!

your reviews of The Legend of Bagger Vance and Caddyshack should definitely be filed into your "best" category. leave it to you to find the happy cynic outlook on something like Bagger Vance and the hidden depths of Caddyshack!

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Thanks. Like my Ghostbusters review, Caddyshack was one I wasn't really happy with. Go know.

Bonnie Black replies:

really? i loved the Ghostbusters review. perhaps generationally you're too close to the movies and their spirit and so it's hard for you to find ways to "review" it so those who don't inately "get it" will understand.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Maybe. Maybe that's the reason that I just don't think I'm saying anything all that interesting and insightful in those particular essays.

Bonnie Black again:

well, there you go then. i never thought about all the weird and interesting class messages going on in Caddyshack -- i just thought it was hilarious!

posted 11.28.00
Rob Lund writes:

Subject: review of Bagger Vance

Damn, girl, you've got this down to a tee (no pun intended)! I do love your writing, and your words roll off a reader's tongue almost poetically.

Before I start sounding like Jeffrey Lyons, let me just say that my perverse appreciation for the writings of movie reviewers stems from my desire to be one.

posted 11.28.00
Pat Reilly writes:

what kind of mind altering pharmisuticals were you on when you watched this kind of compistion of elephent crap and will smith [Bagger Vance]. My theory was that you had to pay me to see that so called movie. if you wanted me to see that movie again you would have to buy two tickets, 1 for me, and one for the person holding the gun to my head. this movie was very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very horrible. my condolences go out to the family's of Matt Damon, and Will Smith. i hope for later reference that you can get your head out of your rear and watch the movie. And please stop taking money from those hot shot stars to give there movie a good review. i have to go now because it's past my bedtime. i will catch you in a movie theater some day.

p.s.-i never actually saw the movie, but my assumptions where well founded.have a nice day

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Boy, you sure know how to make a convincing case for your opinion. I can't bear to imagine how you'd have ravaged my review if you actually seen the movie you're talking about.

Your genius astounds me.

Pat Reilly replies:

Boy you sure know how to use sarcasm a lot. My girlfriend and I went to see Bagger Vance yesterday and I can say now that it sucked. I have playing golf for about four years. I have never seen or heard of a man playing golf in suspenders. The characters were shallow and not well played. My expectations were not met and I was upset that I paid $5 for that boring excuse for a movie My genius astounds me.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

You should set up your own movie-review site. Think of all the time you'd save, not having to actually see the movies before you review them. "This movie is very very (x 100) horrible -- not that I've seen it or anything" -- The Psychic Critic.

posted 11.28.00
Jeffrey Anglada writes:

I was disappointed by your Hollywood-tainted view of Dancer in the Dark. Perhaps the poetic irony of a musical in the most unlikely of stories escaped your comprehension. Perhaps you cannot fathom how a character, blinded by her passion for her son and ignorant of this county's judicial system, might not realize her survival was not only close, but also easy to obtain. And perhaps you prefer Whitney Houston's ability to hit a high note to Bjorks ability to haunt the soul and arouse the spirit.

In your review you wrote, "...he [von Trier] has drawn out Selma's distress beyond the point to which I'm willing to grant a filmmaker the opportunity to indulge himself". Thankfully for millions of move watchers world-wide, your tolerance is not the measure by which good films are made. Perhaps you should devote your next review to Dr. T. and the Women where self-indulgent, painfully ignorant-scripts and base characters may suite your taste better.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

Fortunately for me and for millions of moviegoers worldwide, Lars von Trier's own brand of self-indulgence -- and your tolerance for such -- is not generally considered the measure of a great film.

Perhaps you should consider that my mixed reaction to Dancer in the Dark does not automatically make me a philistine who is appeased only by Hollywood crap.

Jeffrey Anglada replies:

Fair enough.

posted 11.28.00
Mark Yoffe writes:

Thank you, MaryAnn, for your sober review of this repulsive film [Dancer in the Dark]. Unfortunately such a senematographic deabacles often take place when an arragant European director decides he knows enough about American life to make a movie about it. They approach this subject with an agenda: America is horrible and Americans are crude. Think of Herzog's Paris Texas or Konchalovsky's Runaway Train or awful Deliverance. Why do they need foreign actors to play Americans? Why should they shoot America in Scandinavia? Why was not the story set in the same Szechoslovakia during the communism? That was the place where you certainly could not find justice. The movie's stoskpiling of tragedies and myseries is a shameless assault on the viewer, it is as exploitive a unbelievable. You were right it was strangely attractive, like a circus side show, but was it good -- no!

posted 11.28.00
roni nevo writes:

Subject: A comment on the review of Dancer in the Dark

you think Zentropa was von trier first feature film ? better get your facts together when you write a review ! (it, at least, his 3rd feature after "Element of Crime", "Epidemic" and you can also count "Medea" (made for danish t.v). next time try using IMDB.

The Flick Filosopher responds:

I don't "think" it -- the info came from the press packet for Dancer in the Dark. Maybe your info isn't as accurate as you think it is (a TV film isn't a feature film, for one thing). Or maybe the press people screwed up.

Either way, it doesn't change how I feel about the film.

posted 11.28.00
dane spencer writes:

[my comments interspersed throughout, in itals/Warning: spoilers for The Contender]

Subject: The Offender

You and I didn't watch the same movie.

We saw the same movie. We just have differing ideas of what women are supposed to be.

Please review the attached.

Okay.

The Movie, The Contender - A Critique

If you think the battle for equal representation, gender balance, and equality is being won,

Who said it was? Women do not make up anywhere near the same percentage in the House or the Senate that they do in the population.

think again. Having just watched Hollywood's newest movie, The Contender, I was at first impressed that finally here was a movie that was showing the way a woman could make it to the White house, albeit through the Vice Presidency.

The way a woman will eventually make it to the White House is the same way that men get there: by being a politician, with all that that implies.

As I walked out of the theater at the ending of the movie to the swelling of music, I felt I'd just watched a movie that promised hope for women to change the face of politics.

Why on Earth would you expect that women are going to change the face of politics? Politicians are politicians, whether they are male or female.

But, after close scrutiny, and introspection, I found the movie to be glaring subliminal propaganda.

How can something be both glaring and subliminal?

Before I explain how this movie may actually set back the women's movement to somewhere between 1959 and 1966, go to a theater, not with your husband,

Talk about setting women's rights back to the 60s! Why do you assume that every woman would automatically take her husband to the movies with her? Why do you assume that every woman has a husband? This is the 21st century -- some of us are perfectly happy to go by ourselves, and don't need to be told as much.

but in mass,

Like at church? Or do you mean "en masse," like the way most women are constitutionally incapable of going to a public restroom alone?

and watch The Contender with an open mind. Call a friend, go ahead, I'll wait. . . Are you back? Good. Now listen to what I have to say and see if you don't come up with the same conclusions I have. The Movie The Contender is about a woman senator who is in line to fill a vacancy for the Vice Presidency that is left open after the Vice President dies prior to the story line of the movie. Joan Allen plays the Republican turned Democrat Senator who is up before the Confirmation Hearing Committee. The republican adversary who is the committee chair doesn't want to confirm a woman

No, he doesn't want to confirm someone in whom he doesn't see the possibility for "greatness." Her gender doesn't even enter into it.

to the high office of Vice President, and this sets the plot around which the movie is written. The committee chair finds a young male democrat,

Actually, Christian Slater's character approaches Gary Oldman's, not the other way around.

who, because of his sense of right, and wrong, and his eagerness to make a mark, is willing to dig up dirt on this Vice President hopeful.

No, actually Slater is unwilling to play dirty, and is very uncomfortable with the idea when Oldman makes it clear that's what he's going to do. Wait: maybe we DIDN'T see the same movie after all...

And dirt he finds. The Senator, it is implied, has a tawdry background from college, having had a wild sexual romp at a fraternity, with incriminating pictures to boot. The Confirmation Hearing Committee Chair uses this information to try to disgrace the Senator. If it can be proved that the Senator as a young woman had loose morals and values, then she would not be fit for the seat of the Vice Presidency. The movie is about the Senator's personal struggle, exposure of her private life, and political en-battlement behind the scenes. While on the surface the movie does promote women to be strong, high principled, and persistent, it is the underlying message written into the movie that sells women short by illustrating that women must depend on support and guidance from men for success, and that women must follow in the footsteps of men in order to become world leaders.

No. The message is NOT that women have to depend on men, but that lower-level politicians, of either gender, have to suck up to those more powerful. Again, gender does not enter into it.

I submit that this underlying message is not only not true, and unrealistic as to how women have historically gained power and wedged themselves into politics,

So how have women historically gained power? I'll tell you: by fucking powerful men and being the power behind the throne. Is that what you're advocating a return to? Or are you talking about how women influence future generations through how they raise their children? That's bringing things back to the 60s too.

Women have "wedged" themselves into politics by being politicians and playing political games, and I challenge you to name one female politician for whom this is not true.

but that this movie is a blatant attempt to brainwash women and men on how women should behave in politics, and what to expect as they become players in a man's game.

Say what? Women in politics have to behave like politicians, just like men do.

Message debunk #1 Let's first take the premise of the story: A woman senator becomes a vice president because a male Vice President has died in office. The only way for a woman to become President in this country is through the Vice Presidency is a myth;

And the movie does NOT suggest that this is the only way for a woman to become President. Where on Earth did you garner that from?

so powerful that nearly every woman already believes it to be true.

Really? You've polled nearly every woman to discover this?

But, if you look historically, like at the right to vote, women didn't get permission from men, they demanded change.

And from whom did they demand the change? Martians? Elephants? Boll weevils? They had to convince male politicians to make this change.

The most notable progress women have made in history is when they have been forces to be reckoned with, and they did not aqueous

"Aqueous: adj 1 a: of, relating to, or resembling water b: made from, with, or by water." I agree: women have rarely achieved any political power or affected any societal change by liquefaction.

to playing it safe and by the rules of men.

Hmm. And didn't Joan Allen's character defy the rules of politics by refusing to give in to blackmail?

A woman can be President of the United States without first becoming Vice President if she demands to be taken on her own terms.

And what does this have to do with The Contender? This movie is not about how a woman could become President of the United States. It's about the difference between public and private life.

Message debunk #2 Next, consider that Joan Allen seeks approval from only men in the movie.

Since she is seeking to move into a high political office, the only suitable advice is going to come from others already in those positions. And there aren't many women there.

Joan seeks support from her husband,

And what's wrong with that? He's her husband, for Christ's sake, as well as her campaign manager.

she asks for her republican father's approval and guidance,

And you never ask you parents' advice on anything?

and she gives her full power to the President when she tells him she will "do anything that he wants" in regard to stepping down from consideration.

A man would have done the same thing.

All of these men are father figures in the story.

Bullshit. Only her father is a father figure. Do relationships, whether they be professional, political, or personal, between men and women automatically place women in subordinate positions? You're the one infantilizing women, not this movie.

She doesn't seem to have any female friends she can turn to. She is always jogging by herself in a cemetery, as if to say that she lost her women friends from pursuing politics. What kind of message is that to women?

It's a message that the cemetery is a peaceful place for a jog.

Message debunk #3 The movie cast is mostly of men,

Because this story is set within the corridors of Washington power, and politicians are mostly men! That's reality.

and maybe that's the point, but there are only five roles of varying significance played by women in this movie. All the roles are of women displaying signs of weakness and subordination to men: A.) In the beginning of the movie a woman drives off a bridge, where coincidentally, a Governor who is also in line for filling the vacancy happens to be fishing. When the car goes off the bridge he dives into the water trying to save her. The metaphor is clear, women are helpless as demonstrated on the woman's face as she helplessly is trapped in the vehicle.

Not coincidentally! She is an accomplice in a political ploy to make the governor look like a hero! You are totally misrepresenting the character here.

Before she dies, (yes, they kill her off the first five minutes into the movie) she mouths the words, "Help me" for all the moviegoers to see. Message: Women are helpless and require saving. Oh yea, and they are bad drivers, and swimmers.

Bullshit. She deliberately drove off the bridge so that the governor could "save" her. This is helpless? If anything, this is a woman demonstrating the traditional way women exert political power: by playing along with political games and machinations.

B.) The Governor's wife, who has virtually no part in the movie, except to demonstrate that she is a bimbo, goes into a diatribe about sacrificing her life and dreams so that her husband could realize his. This will strike a chord with most women, but the fact that she plays a weak character as a bubble head confuses the issue. Which is the real message: Women give away their lives and dreams to men, and isn't that terrible? Or, women are subordinate to men because they don't have the capacity to be great?

The governor's wife is far from a bimbo -- in fact, once again, she plays the traditional role you want women to play: the power behind the throne.

Yes, it is terrible that women subordinate their own aspirations to those of their husbands. Yet you condemn Joan Allen's character when she doesn't!

C.) The woman who plays the reporter, who later turns out to be an FBI agent, gets people talking with coyly veiled questions to dig up dirt on the woman senator. We find out that she is investigating the woman senator on the behalf of the President. Her true feelings get discovered when she makes a professional error by asking the President's attache' who is getting into a helicopter, to not ruin Joan Allen's chances for filling the Vice Presidency. She apologetically couches her plea for all women kind by dopilly saying "I hope this isn't inappropriate,. . . . This is the only chance we (women) have". The Presidential Attache then tells her she is right: It is absolutely inappropriate". Then he slams the helicopter door in her face. IF that isn't a message to women.

Yes, it's a message that she asked an inappropriate question. You fail to mention that the Sam Elliott character has been working surreptiously to see that Allen is confirmated as Vice President. Though he would have done that for a male candidate as well.

D.) The wife of the Chair of the Confirmation Hearing, who latter into the movie, coaches Joan Allen when she is under attack by the Committee is a strong and politically savvy character. The problem is she only has a couple of minutes in the movie. She advises the V.P. hopeful to fight back; play dirty like the other side is doing. The Joan Allen character won't go against her principles, and she refuses to resort to dirty politics. This normally would be a good message, but in this case she is so strong on her principles she ends up looking weak and naive, out-of-touch, and idealistic.

And isn't that the whole point of the movie, that principles are worth sticking to even when they're inconvenient? What's wrong with being idealistic? Isn't idealism precisely what you are advocating? You seem to be contradicting yourself: you complain when Allen plays by political rules, and you complain when she doesn't.

(unbefitting a world leader).

You've missed the ultimate irony of the film. Allen did have the "greatness" Oldman wanted to see, but to show that greatness -- a determination to stick to principles even when that would hurt her -- would have betrayed it.

The coach, meanwhile, ends up looking like a streetwise, savvy, no-better-than-men,

Now we get right down to the issue: you think men are worthless. How is this chauvanism any better than how many men view women?

politico. The message? Women have to be like men if they are going to succeed.

No, politicians have to be like politicians.

Having principles are unrealistic, weak minded and have no place in politics.

Um, doesn't Allen triumph in the end? Don't strength of character, idealism, and principles win?

E.) The Vice Presidential hopeful is relatively young, attractive, and capable; all things necessary to make it in a man's world. Make no mistake, the movie is up front about politics being a man's game. The Joan Allen character is very competent and would make a fine Vice President in the scenario that is being played out in the movie. But, this scenario doesn't leave you with much to chew on. The character is left defending her principals by not using her voice.

That is the entire point of her principles. If she played dirty, she'd be just like every other politican, and aren't you saying that's not what women should be?

Ultimately the writers of this movie took the main characters voice away, (the woman) and gave the voice, power, and authority to the President (a man). When she is given a voice, she says things like, "I believe in a strong military". Just when I want to hear a fresh perspective, and conviction to change the status quo, the writers make her weak and trivial and ordinary.

Why is supporting a strong military "weak" or "trivial"? You may not agree with Allen's character, but doesn't she have the right to advocate whatever she wants? You're saying that a woman is not a woman unless she thinks and feels certain things. This is not what the equal-rights movement fought for. If you think women all must think and feel the same thing, then you are no better than men who once said that women did not need education since marriage and children provide all they need in life.

Why have women in office if they are going to sound like men?

Have you ever watched C-SPAN? All male politicians do NOT agree. Why should all women agree with you?

What's the point? Again, the message: Women have to be like men to make it in politics.

Once again, the message is that politics is politics... and Allen's character defies that. So you're wrong is many ways here: Allen succeeds by not being a consummate politician, and there are many MEN who would be unable to play politics as well. You're seeing an anti-female agenda where there simply isn't one.

Message debunk #4 - Conclusion If The Contender were really advocating women to run for office

It does no such thing.

it would not use scare tactics to convince women (or men) that running for a political office can only result in horrendous prying, gross privacy loss, and political madness.

Do you watch the news? This is reality. What planet do you live on?

We know from observation in life that this can be true, but this movie certainly will not get many recruits, men or women, who have a different perspective to try to make a change. This movie confirms our worst fears.

Don't blame the movie for showing us reality.

Instead, if The Contender were truly an advocate for equal representation and gender balance, it would encourage political participation by showing women how to succeed using different methods.

Why? What about MEN who advocate change, who have different ideas about the way things should get done? You are nothing more than a female chauvanist pig.

The movie could have encouraged women to stand up and be heard, and to become world leaders on their own terms.

Since you obviously speak for all the women of the world, perhaps you can tell me what those "terms" are. I didn't get the memo. And you'd better hurry. Election Day is coming up, and I won't know how to vote unless women like you tell me what I believe.

Women (and men) don't have to play politics as usual, or to succumb to this age old chicanery.

What age-old chicanery? Sticking to what you believe in? Not playing dirty?

This movie does a disservice to everyone who is sincerely seeking a political change.

This movie is not a public service announcement. It's a movie.

This movie successfully shows a view with the message of keeping women in their place.

By persevering and becoming Vice President of the United States? You're right: a woman's place is in the house. The White House.

dane spencer replies:

[again, my comments interspersed in itals]

It is apparent that you may be upset about my review and may have seen it as a personal attack.

No, I didn't see it as personal. I saw it as a view of who women are and what they should be that was diametrically opposed to my own. That's not the same as taking something personally.

It was not meant to be so, however, after reading your rebuttal I can tell you that much of what you chose to disagree with me about is semantics, and an occasion of misspelling, which is completely off the point and not worth arguing about.

You asked for a critique of your review, and that's what I gave you. If you want me to take you seriously, learn how to use a dictionary to hone your thoughts. And if you think I was only commenting on your spelling, I suggest you reread what I wrote.

I will tell you what I know about the women-in-politics-movement. "There are nine women in the Senate, with three freshmen up for re-election this year. There are three women Governors, only two of which have been elected. Not real good statistics if you consider how long women have been trying to pursue politics, and as you put it, " as politicians."

And you think this is because women aren't acting like women "should," but because they're trying to act like men? Would you apply the same logic to blacks or Jews or any group that isn't white, male, and Euro-descended? Would you say there aren't enough black senators or governors because they're trying to act "white" instead of behaving as blacks "should"?

You would be well put to read the article "Why the Women Are Fading Away" by Gail Collins who writes editorials for The New York Times, and author of "Gossip, Celebrity, and American Politics."

Why "women are fading away"? Women have barely arrived on the political scene!

And, on what I personally know about the women's-political-movement is that my mother is author of the Gender Balance Bill which has gone to the White House.

So that makes you an expert on what all women are supposed to think and feel?

In addition, Maryann Johanson, if you have your name in the phone book you can also thank my mother for that, because in the early 1970's having women listed wasn't even an option, certainly not without your husband's permission.

So because women fought for the freedom to be treated as individuals instead of adjuncts to men, I must now give up that individuality to agree with all women?

Now it's common place, and of course as you point out, today not every woman is married or wants to be.

So why did you assume that women reading your critique would be going to see the film with their husbands?

I think you profoundly misunderstood my view.

If I did, it was only because you didn't express it accurately.

You choose to attack my language use instead trying to understand my content,

Again, I ask you to reread what I wrote. If you still think I misunderstood, then try to explain again what you were saying.

and I'm not sure why. It doesn't matter, but to imply that just because I'm male,

Actually, I assumed you were a woman.

I can't possibly know what I'm talking about when it comes to equal rights and equal representation, you are incorrect.

You implied in your critique, that all women should think and feel the same things and support the same political issues (like being opposed to a strong military), and hence can present some sort of unified front. That simply is not true: women no more automatically agree on everything any more than men do. What is the point of a women's rights movement if all it is going to do is replace the cultural and societal dominance of men with a cultural and social dominance of women? Aren't we all individuals entitled to our own points of view? Or are we only entitled to that point of view when it coincidences with what someone thinks it should be?

dane spencer again:

[once more, my comments interspersed in itals]

The fact is, we agree on certain things.

It is an age old problem, and part of the human condition, that we can not hear with an individual's ears the way the individual heard him/herself. And we can not speak with an individual's mouth so that we may be understood. You may not understand what I just wrote, but I'll bet get close to the understanding I want you to have.

I understand what you mean, but that's what makes it even more important to make ourselves clear when arguing a point.

My point is, I agree that it would be awful if every woman thought the same way, (though they are accused of it often) and moreover, not probably possible. This is not what I was advocating, but it is understandable that you may have thought it was.

You actually argue for what I thought I was arguing for when you ask the question, "Aren't we all individuals entitled to our own points of view? Or are we only entitled to that point of view when it coincidences (coincides?) with what someone thinks it should be?"

Sorry, but I did not get that from your comments on the film at all. You seemed to be saying exactly the opposite: that "men's" methods of governing are not what women should be following, but that they should follow "female" methods... whatever those are supposed to be.

To me this is the trap the movie falls into: Showing a woman with a point of view that she can't use her voice, -forget about her principals.

You're referring to the fact that she did not speak up and defend herself when she could prove the allegations against her were false... but then she would have allowed the belief that one's personal sexual life has a place in politics. The point of the film was that it does not. If she played dirty and used the information Oldman's wife gave her, she would have been as bad as the rest of them, and aren't you arguing for a new paradigm? You continue to contradict yourself.

It's far more dangerous to advocate to women or any group not to use their voice.

The film does NOT advocate that.

In other words, the writer didn't have to show the Joan Allen character as a promiscuous youngster, though I know that was one of the points in the movie, I just think it was a cheep way out.

That was the entire point of the film. You're saying the movie should have been so different that it would have been an entirely different movie. That's like arguing that a Mob movie should avoid violence and harsh language.

I would have rather heard the woman for what she stood for, just like what I would like to hear from a real candidate. But wait, candidates saying what they really stand for? That'll never happen.

We did hear that from her, during her final speech. It was a small part of the film, yes, but don't you think one of the points of the film is that real substance gets lost when we focus on completely irrelevant things like a candidate's sex life? This is the reality that the film is criticizing.

So, thank you for your critique, I enjoy your discussions. I'm not a serious film critic for one of the reason you have pointed out. It is difficult to get it all out as it is formulated in your mind, and then have to do it not just once, but day in, and day out.

It takes practice. If you're serious about being a writer, you need to write a lot, and be prepared to screw up a lot.

I would appreciate it though, if I can continue to send you reviews from time to time, as I become so motivated. Thanks again.

You can send them. I can't promise that I will always have the time to go into much depth with my comments.

newer mail | previous mail