From: "David H. Adler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 9/25/01 4:26:44 PM
>On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:22:09AM -0700, Dave Cross wrote:
[about Charlie's Angels]
>> Greg recently persuaded me that this wasn't as bad as I
>> thought it would be, so I watched it. He was _so_ wrong.
>> Personally I need a bit more than 90 minutes of vaguely
>> attractive young women doing kung fu in order to enjoy a
>> film :)
>
> See, now, I happen to think there's more to it than
> that. It's got a sense of humor about itself, if nothing
> else. It's also possible that I got exposed to the
> original series more than those of you over the other
> side of the pond, so may have some odd kind of
> appreciation for it.
WARNING - The following is getting dangerously close to being
a rant :)
I saw _plenty_ of the series as I was growing up. I still enjoy
it today. But only because it's an artifact of it's time. 25
years ago the majority of people _did_ think of women as clothes
horses. I just get depressed that in the year 2000 we're making
films that still perpertuate those ideas. There _are_ people
who will argue that it's some kind of "post-feminist", "girl
power" story when, in fact, it's the kind of thing that puts
back the women's movement by a good fifteen years. Here's Joe
Queenan writing on that very subject at the time the film came
out:
"One might even argue that the film has an artfully concealed
feminist subtext, since the three women not only outmuscle the
men in the movie but outact them (Matt LeBlanc is invisible,
Bill Murray wasted, Tim Curry his usual ham self, Tom Green completely
useless, and Sam Rockwell, the kidnap victim, entirely one-dimensional.)
"Alas, the scene where Diaz lovingly studies her gyrating derriere
in a wall-to-ceiling mirror and the numerous sequences where
the twin peaks of Mount Barrymore seem to be erupting from her
blouse, gown, swimsuit or blanket make it difficult to advance
such a theory. Having had an entire paragraph to reconsider the
matter, I don't know why I even bothered."
Tho' I should point out that Queenan enjoyed the film despite
that. I can't.
> Also, having listened to the commentary on the dvd, it's
> nice to know that, although it may not be obvious from
> the film, the director actually has some kind of clue...
I agree with you one that. He did sound like he knew what he
was doing.
> Besides, Cameron Diaz has *such* a lovely smile...
She's a very talented comic actor and aftr seeing "Being John
Malchovich[sp?]" I have great hopes for her. This doesn't, of
course, mean that every film she's in will be worth watching.
Dave...
[getting off his soap-box now]
--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>
"Let me see you make decisions, without your television"
- Depeche Mode (Stripped)
