The weekly buzz

This week we have: The Princess is Dead; cowards behind the 'Brave' project; The Art Directors Guild Lifetime Achievement Award goes to Patricia Norric and Buffy reboot.


The Princess is Dead
Disney announced it will not be producing fairy tale stories anymore. That means the death of the princess crappola! It's things like that that make me think that maybe, just maybe, something is changing in the rusty Hollywood. Disney has an awful record of making girls look like retards. Because, lets face it, thats what a princess is. She has no opinions of her own, dreams only about getting married (which, in this context means, changing the owner from her father to another man) and worries only about what to wear. Not to mention, that any other women in these stories are either demanted and/or evil. Burn Down The Tiaras, I say!

Obviously, whether we are going to see any difference in their bizzare production politics, is another issue. There is an absolutely phenomenal study, released by the Stacy L. Smith and Marc Choueiti from University of Southern California, on gender disparity on screen in the kid movies. According to the study in the films released between 2006 and 2009 in the US:

- 29% of the speaking characters were females and 70% were male
- a higher percentage of females than males (24% vs. 4%) are shown in sexy, tight, or alluring attire
- females are more likely than their male counterparts to be physically attractive (14% vs. 3.6%) and portrayed with some exposed skin between the mid chest and upper thigh regions (18.5% vs. 5.6%)
- though not depicted, waist size is also related to gender with a higher percentage of females than males shown with a small waist (22.9% vs. 4.5%). The percentage of characters with a large chest (males=15.3%, females= 12.6%) or an unrealistic body ideal (males=2.9%, females=7.5%) varies significantly -- but not meaningfully (less than 5%) -- with gender

I can't really put into words how much this pisses me off. The study also provides us with this sad stat:

the biological sex of 1,565 directors, writers, and producers was ascertained.11 Only 7% (n=10) of directors, 13% (n=56) of writers, and 20% (n=200) of producers are female. Stated in another way, 93% (n=134) of directors, 87% (n=376) of writers, and 80% of producers (n=789) are male. Taken together, these numbers calculate into a ratio of 4.88 males to every one female in key production occupations. If the film is the unit of analysis (rather than the individual), a total of 8.2% of the movies feature a female director, 32% feature at least one female writer, and 80.3% feature at least one female producer (source)





Unfortunately, this news connects with the Cowards Behind 'Brave' Project story or The Bigelow Effect (great article by Melissa Silverstein: link)

Meet Branda Chapman. The first female director hired by Pixar. And, to everyone's surprise, the director fired from working on studio's first girl-centered movie, 'Brave', just after few weeks time.

Chapman is no stranger to the industry, she has worked on many acclaimed animations thus far. 'Brave'  seemed like a perfect fit for her. The movie tells a story of a princess who instead of being all princess-like, prefers to become the best archer in the kingdom. The release has been pushed to Christmas 2012.

Branda Chapman has apparently been fired from the project due to 'creative differences' (which basically translates to: studio is being a dick). Miss Brenda Chapman remains on staff at Pixar. The studio is being secretive about the future of the film.





Now, onto some good news.

Patricia Norris is going to be awarded with Lifetime Achievement Award at the annual Arts Directors Guild event in February. She has worked as both a production designer and a costume designer on many film sets, including 'Lost Highway'; 'The Singing Detective'; '2010 The Year We Made Contact', to name a few.

She is only a second woman to be awarded by the guild. In the words of the Guild's President: 'by celebrating Patricia's life and career, the guild reaffirms the hopes of every young designer regardless of their background or gender, encouraging them to pursue their dreams and overcome the status quo in the pursuit of their creative aspirations'





Buffy Reboot

 Now, there's the scoop that got the fansites traffic steaming. Buffy reboot is going off under Warner Bros. There's an entirely new writer, Whit Anderson who is going to take over Joss Whedon's spot. The pressure on this woman's shoulders is enormous. Because, for Buffy fans, Whedon is god. No discussion.


The idea of another Buffy movie, after a terrible flop of a first one, seems shaky. But, after Warner got Charles Roven (producer of Batman reboot franchise) on board, the internet seems to be more hopeful.

Fingers crossed. After all, there's a whole generation of people who are brought up on the Twilight, instead of Buffy goodness.

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles

Synopsis

Jeanne is a widow who lives with her son. She supports the household with government's money and prostitution. Throughout over three hours of the movie we witness her mundane life. During these hours, the stealthy, suffocating existence of a woman trapped in her own tragic life is unveiled. It's a difficult, complex cinema. The film, almost immediately after its release, became a cult classic and one of the most important feminist movies. 

Review

The film, made in the 1975, is a clever re-telling of Zavattini's (one of the main names in the cinema's neorealism movement) motto ' the ideal film would be a ninety minutes of the life of a man whom nothing happens.' We see Jeanne confined to a space of her apartment, doing everyday housewife chores and serving her son. She seems mechanical and controlling. The movie speaks the loudest in details. Because, on the surface of things, there is nothing unplanned and/or unwanted in Jeanne's life: from the encounters with other people to making a dinner, there is no freedom of casuality.

'The first blow against the monolithic accumulation of traditional film conventions (already undertaken by radical filmmakers) is to free the look of the camera into its materiality in time and space and the look of the audience into dialectics, passionate detachment. There is no doubt that this destroys the satisfaction, pleasure and privilege of the 'invisible guest,' and highlights how film has depended on voyeuristic active/passive mechanisms. Women, whose image has continually been stolen and used for this end, cannot view the decline of the traditional film form with anything much more than sentimental regret.' (source )

Akerman's film-making is intentionally avoiding the voyeurism. Static shots, no close-ups, camera fixed on a continually same height, all to make sure the audience 'always knows where I (the director) am'. These formal decisions help in not only stressing out the feminist factor of the project. But also, to support the intensity of the narrative. Strict editing (no fades), no score and a stark mise-en-scene make the disconnected life of Jeanne that much more difficult to watch.

The claustrophobic feel of this woman's daily routine slowly reveals her complete lack of self. Take away the peeling of the potatoes, the groceries shopping and ironing and Jeanne disappears. She holds onto those things so closely because when one day she starts making small mistakes (the burnt dinner, the messy hair), she is left with literally nothing but a threat of facing herself. Realising onself and admitting to the consuming void, seems to be the greatest of fears. It is up to a debate, but many think that her unfolding happens after she, for the first time in her life, experiences climax with one of her clients. If it is true, it adds yet another layer of meaning to the story. Is she rejecting the idea of pleasure or is she not comfortable with her experiencing the pleasure? Is the orgasm unaccaptable because it's so human and not-mechanical; or is it because it means connecting with ones body? From that moment on, the audience knows, the tragedy is close. And even when it arrives, it happens quietly. In the patriarchal system, a woman isn't allowed to experience any extreme feelings. She is deprived of any freedoms. That's why, when Jeanne commits a crime, she is passive, emotionless. She acts like nothing happened. “When she bangs the glass on the table and you think the milk might spill, that’s as dramatic as the murder,” stated Akerman.

'Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles' is a painful but necessary viewing.

IMDB Page 

Supporting characters in tv- part one

Leslie Winkle
'The Big Bang Theory' 

 Leslie: Listen, neither of us are neuroscientists, but we both understand the biochemistry of sex. I mean, dopamine in our brains is released across synapses, causing pleasure. You stick electrodes in a rat's brain, give him an orgasm button, he'll push that thing until he starves to death.
Leonard: Well, who wouldn't?
Leslie: Well, the only difference between us and the rat is that you can't stick an electrode in our hypothalamus. That's where you come in.

Leslie Winkle (Sara Gilbert) is a physicist working at Cal Tech, Passadena. She's not only clever but also outspoken, witty and (the shock! the horror!) likes sex. She's not emotionally fussy when it comes to men. If you wanted to see her aggravated, try arguing that loop quantom gravity is a lesser theory compared to the string one. You might as well walk up to Sarah Connor claiming terminators are cool as long as they look like GlauBot.  




Sheldon: Who told you you could touch my board?
Leslie: No one.
Sheldon: I don't come in to your house and touch your board.
Leslie: There are no incorrect equations on my board.
Sheldon: Oh! That is so, so...
Leslie: I'm sorry; I've got to run, if you come up with an adjective, text me.

 Now, imagine these two having a spin-off show together, with never-ending bazingas and the physics banter. What a little nerd heaven that would be.

A Nightmare on Elm Street '84

 

Meet Nancy (Heather Langenkamp). Lately, she hasn't been sleeping well. 

Synopsis

Teenagers on Elm Street begin to have nightmares. In their dreams, a bizzare creature appears. He has disfigured face, wears a striped, red and green sweater and has metal hands with long claws. His name is Freddy Kruger.

Review

When we meet Nancy, she and her friends seem like typical teenegers. However, looking closer, the difference between the girls and the boys is clear and, may I say, it is not flattering for the latter. Nancy and Tina (Amanda Wyss) might seem silly (boys talk and lots of giggles) but they have the capacity to spot there is something out of place and disturbing about their nightmares. They pursue the issue, finding out more strange details. Meanwhile, all Rod (Jsu Garcia) ever thinks about is how and when to jump his girlfriend. And, Glen (Johnny Depp's first movie) acts like a cute but completely useless puppy (failing at making a simple phone call).

Freddy begins his killings shortly after we are introduced to the Elm Street bunch. The movie would have been perfect, if Mr Kruger didn't turn out to be a bit of a misogynistic pig. His male victims are killed with a lot of splash and fully clothed. Whereas girls face Kruger either wearing hardly anything, or nothing at all (the bath time scene). Their killings are highly sexualised and far less bloody. Other than that, Nancy kicks ass. She is the only one who is smart enough to figure out what is really going on. She proves she can think and act on her own. Whenever a guy is asked to help, he fails spectacularly and the neighbours life and sanity lay entirly on Nancy's shoulders.

Turns out, these suburban girls can fight, who knew?

IMDB Page