I still like that the entire review calls her "Biochemist GF" instead of by name.
Because that plus the - repeated! -assumptions that Clive is supposed to be sympathetic just keep making me blink a lot and wonder what ingrained assumptions about the role of men versus women in any narrative got brought to that review; it sure sounds a lot like they went in expecting the woman to be insignificant and the man to be the moral voice of the film and that they relentlessly insisted on interpreting it through that lens even when the movie went for a totally opposite conclusion; for all the movie's failings, that particular take on the importance of Elsa versus Clive is not one that I think holds up to much scrutiny and it actually bugs me a lot because it feels a little like the reviewer is justifying their own internalized misogyny by saying because Elsa has head damage she's just a crazy bitch.
(I will not actually deny the film is a hot mess, though, and comes to several conclusions I think are hideous and abominable, even if I was entertained by it while I watched it. But that interpretation is not one I think is supportable by the film itself.)
And yes, holy crap, is this a separate issue from the triggery content of the movie, of which there is LOTS. EVERYONE WHO THINKS THEY MIGHT WANT TO SEE THIS EVER needs to understand this is a movie that contains graphic scenes of incestual rape, among other horrifying things, and nobody needs to be exposed to that if they don't want to. Absolutely nobody. It is not justifiable to discuss this movie without being upfront and honest about the fact that even a brief summary of the plot could risk triggering people, because it's just that nerve-wracking.
But it is a terribly large leap to go from "this movie contains horrible things" to "this movie ENDORSES horrible things" and I don't think that's an approach the text of the movie will support for very long.
no subject
Because that plus the - repeated! -assumptions that Clive is supposed to be sympathetic just keep making me blink a lot and wonder what ingrained assumptions about the role of men versus women in any narrative got brought to that review; it sure sounds a lot like they went in expecting the woman to be insignificant and the man to be the moral voice of the film and that they relentlessly insisted on interpreting it through that lens even when the movie went for a totally opposite conclusion; for all the movie's failings, that particular take on the importance of Elsa versus Clive is not one that I think holds up to much scrutiny and it actually bugs me a lot because it feels a little like the reviewer is justifying their own internalized misogyny by saying because Elsa has head damage she's just a crazy bitch.
(I will not actually deny the film is a hot mess, though, and comes to several conclusions I think are hideous and abominable, even if I was entertained by it while I watched it. But that interpretation is not one I think is supportable by the film itself.)
And yes, holy crap, is this a separate issue from the triggery content of the movie, of which there is LOTS. EVERYONE WHO THINKS THEY MIGHT WANT TO SEE THIS EVER needs to understand this is a movie that contains graphic scenes of incestual rape, among other horrifying things, and nobody needs to be exposed to that if they don't want to. Absolutely nobody. It is not justifiable to discuss this movie without being upfront and honest about the fact that even a brief summary of the plot could risk triggering people, because it's just that nerve-wracking.
But it is a terribly large leap to go from "this movie contains horrible things" to "this movie ENDORSES horrible things" and I don't think that's an approach the text of the movie will support for very long.