On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Dave Cross wrote:
[about Charlie's Angels]
[snip]
> "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.)
This is certainly true (the outacting) and I would agree about the
sub-plot although I am not a scholar of these things.
> "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."
Perhaps I am naive [1] but these women seem to me to be extremely powerful
in Hollywood (well Barrymore & Diaz anyway) and I like to think that they
could put a stop to anything they felt uncomfortable with.
On the assumption that they felt comfortable with the film, I don't see
that it is our place to judge it. In fact I would say that, if anything,
the film served to demonstrate what a witless, gullible lot men are, to be
taken in by the visible exterior, only to get their arses kicked. Surely
a feminist message if ever there was one ?!
Simon.
(/me thanks Dave for loan of soap-box and hands it back :)
[1] OK, make that *probably* naive :-)
