Intro by Maria
In this episode, Brandon and I discuss the 2009 film 500 Days of Summer. Here’s what that movie is about: Tom, a young guy who is obsessed with falling in love, “falls in love” (and I’m doing air quotes) with Summer. The film follows the 500 days of Tom being “in love”—again, air quotes—with Summer.
During that time, Tom wants nothing more than a true relationship with Summer, even though Summer from the start tells him she doesn’t want a relationship. When they break up, Tom is in shambles, especially after he finds out Summer is engaged and getting married. Coming from someone who clearly stated she was NOT interested in relationships, this is shocking for Tom, and he basically becomes one of those whiny little boys who doesn’t understand how he, a nice boy, didn’t eventually get the girl. As if that’s the only thing that counts.
Listen, the movie isn’t entirely horrible. There are bits of truth in there about relationships, and Brandon and I can relate to a lot of the things shown in this film, especially the link between identity and the type of music or films you enjoy.
However, this movie also has something in it that is annoying, and that’s the manic pixie dream girl. If you don’t know, the manic pixie dream girl, or MPDG, mepejdg, is a female character that only exists to further a man in some way, whether that is by teaching him about life or saving him from his wretched manly self.
During the episode we talk a lot about this and the movie, so I’m not going to give it all away now. You’ll just have to stay tuned to this next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Brandon: Not first time seeing this, but this movie is “right up my alley”; hipster film; main characters are real musicians
Maria: Movie not on our list–decided to continue this “nice guy” movie idea; not first time seeing this
Brandon: Hipster aspects; identity in music; relatable on numerous levels; points out the hypocrisy of feminist hipster men; the way the story was told and artistic choices
Maria: Indie music cred; unconventional storytelling; some truth in attraction and love here; entertaining flick
Brandon: Wanted Summer to stand up for herself more; a lot of stories about guys like Tom
Maria: Ending
Brandon: So-called feminist men who are actually horrible; problems with being an ally and associating that with identity (for some); Tom benefited from a culture that oppresses women even though he calls himself an ally
Maria: Manic pixie dream girl (MPDG)
Maria: All of the movies about women being obsessed with men make women out to be serial killers. They don’t ever get the “you were right! You should have boiled my rabbit!” speech. They’re just crazy.
Inglourious Basterds (2009) vs. Rachel Getting Married (2008)
Intro by Maria
Trigger warning: The next episode of Peculiar Picture Show talks about trauma, war, rape, and PTSD. If these topics are sensitive to you, then feel free to skip this episode.
You talkin’ to me? Are you talkin’ to me? I’m the only one here. Who else would you be talkin’ to?
Chances are this monologue is terribly familiar to you—whether you’ve seen the 1976 Martin Scorsese film Taxi Driver or not. It’s these famous movie lines that come to define Travis Bickle, a young Vietnam War vet who has insomnia, so he starts driving New York City cabs at night to pass the time.
We tag along with Travis as he drives around the city, picking up various characters and just trying to pass the time. During these outings, we learn that Travis likes to visit porn theaters. He also stalks a woman who really isn’t interested in him, and it’s this rejection that seems to cause Travis to snap, deciding to assassinate a presidential candidate. At the same time, he comes across Iris, a 12-year-old prostitute, played by Jodie Foster, and feels a connection to her—almost like a fatherly one, which eventually leads to bloodshed.
Travis Bickle is essentially an unredeemable character. No one wants him to kill a politician just because a woman who supports that politician rejected him—even if the politician is scum.
Spoilers, though. He doesn’t succeed. So he decides to kill the next best thing: Iris’s pimp and all the other men taking advantage of her. The movie climaxes in a blaze of bullets and blood, and Iris watches the slaughter. Travis is injured, but he survives, and he becomes a hero—a taxi driver who rose above the scum and addressed injustice by saving a 12-year-old from garbage people. The woman who rejects him earlier in the film also comes back to pay her respects to the newly found hero, and the movie ends with this commentary about the thin line between heroism and villainy.
Brandon and I also believe this movie comments on post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD—even though it’s not explicit in the film—so a good amount of our time is focused on the history of PTSD and its symptoms. I also discuss my personal experience with trauma.
So sit back, hail yourself a cab, and put on your seatbelt because you’re about to speed through to this next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Brandon: Love 1970s film because there’s not as many “Hollywood” happy endings; Joker seems to want to have been this movie because they were afraid for the Joker to be an awful person
Maria: Robert De Niro became Jodie Foster’s mentor for this movie; movie inspired John Hinckley Jr to become obsessed with Foster and also to try to assassinate Reagan
Brandon: Initially liked this because thought it was complex, but upon re-watching, didn’t seem like it was a positive view of mental illness; film did have awareness of issues, as seen in changes to the original script; doesn’t condone Travis’s actions (feminist?); original perhaps would have commented upon toxic masculinity more than mental illness/PTSD; the ending; character portrait
Maria: Character-driven; interesting and kept my attention; classic film; interesting for its time; performances
Brandon: First 45 minutes extremely slow, boring; jazz soundtrack, particularly the first time
Maria: Jazz soundtrack (when Brandon brought this up); fatigued by the way women are treated in some movies; slightly uncomfortable with the abuse
Brandon: History of PTSD; “official” in 1980, so wasn’t really a term when this movie came out, but has existed for quite some time; in 1980 it was controversial because it emphasized external factors, rather than internal
Maria: Personal experiences with trauma; symptoms of PTSD
Inglourious Basterds (2009) vs. Rachel Getting Married (2008) vs. 500 Days of Summer (2009)
Intro by Brandon
Lady Bird is probably one of my favorite movies. It’s a Millennial coming of age story, and it’s written and directed by a real Millennial—something we haven’t seen in a lot of similar stories. As such, there are a lot of personal touches in the film that a lot of us Millennials dealt with growing up that are hard to describe but, oddly, easy to relate to. Couple that with some smart humor and you’ve got a pretty amazing film.
The plot follows Christine McPherson, or Lady Bird, as she has named herself. Lady Bird is a senior in high school who wants to leave her hometown and be her own person. To do that, though, she has to deal with her own academic ineptitude, her youthful naivety, a major financial recession, and a mother who just doesn’t seem to be pleased with anything she does. None of these things represent an insurmountable task, but the film is more about the journey than the destination and who Lady Bird is along the way.
If you haven’t seen this, it’s an excellent movie, and Maria and I were hard pressed to find anything negative to say about it. It doesn’t spell things out for you, though. Not that it’s particularly hard to understand or enjoy, but there’s more going on here than a story about a teenage girl. The film is subtle and smart in a way that many coming of age films flounder.
Maria spends some time talking about shame, which is something Lady Bird experiences but doesn’t really talk about. The realness of the shame in this film was no doubt helped by the fact that there was a female protagonist, directed and written by a woman—a rarity in the film world. I spend some time talking about how this film encapsulates the experience many Millennials had growing up, and what we’re still putting up with today. Spoiler alert: Millennials put up with a lot growing up, and it’s made many of us reluctant to accept the label.
So, I don’t have a witty lead in for this one, but this is a film that Maria and I both related to on a pretty personal level. I hope you enjoy our thoughts on it in this episode of Peculiar Picture Show, the podcast that talks about movies, maladies, and mental health.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-scientific-underpinnings-and-impacts-of-shame/
Brandon: Instantly related to it; only movie about high school that makes me miss high school
Maria: Takes place in Sacramento, 2002; directed by Greta Gerwig; nominated for several Academy Awards; coming-of-age story; probably biased since we are writers/artists
Brandon: Writing; directing; details; seemed very real, especially about Christian teenagers; humor; the character Lady Bird; relatable
Maria: Out of all films we’ve seen so far, this might be the one I relate to the most; had similar feelings that Lady Bird did, like feelings of shame about house, not having much money, wanting to leave hometown; writing; dialogue; acting; everything
Brandon: Nothing
Maria: Nothing; I can’t imagine someone not enjoying it
Brandon: Emotional labor; Millennial coming-of-age story
Maria: Effects of shame/guilt on mental health
Brandon: Every woman understands the concept of putting in emotional labor to keep other people happy; whereas with men, it’s kinda seen as a virtue to not care about that.
Brandon: That’s what this movie is: a chance for Millennials to define for themselves what [the label of Millennials] means.
Taxi Driver (1976) vs. Almost Famous (2000)
Intro by Maria
The Joker is one of the most recognizable comic supervillains of all time. Even if you’re not a fan, you know who he is, so I guess it’s no surprise that this iconic character has had a variety of portrayals throughout the years.
In 2019, the film Joker was released, this time played by Joaquin Phoenix. This “new” version of the Joker is more realistic, showing him having a job as a rent-a-clown and taking care of his mother. He seems less like a comic book character and more like someone who is struggling.
Struggling against what, you ask? Cue the mental illness! Yes, this movie explicitly comments upon the Joker’s mental health issues and mental illness. In fact, when this movie came out, Brandon and I had already been releasing our podcast episodes, and so I started to get a bunch of suggestions from friends that we should review this movie because it was so blatantly mental-health focused. And so in early 2020, when Brandon and I picked our 2019 movie picks, it was my pick.
Now, just because the movie comments on mental illness doesn’t necessarily mean it helps the stigma around it. The film struggles in this regard. While Phoenix’s portrayal of the Joker is complex, the character’s motivation seems simplistic, driven to become the murderous Joker because he is a victim of his circumstances without enough condemnation by the film’s makers for Brandon to be satisfied.
Furthermore, the movie blames the Joker’s mother—herself suffering from mental illness and past trauma and abuse—for all his troubles, and that may have been the worst part of the movie for us as it perpetuates the idea that victims have control over their situations at all times and have the power to stop it. We know this isn’t true, so why does a movie as recent as this still back this lie?
So if you haven’t seen this movie yet, that’s OK. Brandon would tell you that you’re not missing much, so just skip it. All you need to do is put on a happy face as we delve into the next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Brandon: Movie was made for this podcast; first time seeing film; movie takes place in the early 1980s; many people divided over this film
Maria: My pick; won two Oscars; conflicted about this film
Brandon: Directing; editing; use of music; Phoenix’s portrayal of Arthur Fleck (won an Oscar); technical aspects; tried to make a statement about mental illness; style
Maria: Movie about mental illness first, then a villain origin story; style; entertaining
Brandon: Seems to revel in toxic masculinity; some things don’t really make sense and seem forced—seemed to throw in hot talking points; movie didn’t take enough risks
Maria: Uncomfortable film; Joaquin Phoenix;
Brandon: Criminality and mental illness; how film can affect people’s views of mental illness
Maria: Victim blaming/shaming
Brandon: Toxic masculinity is finding ways to justify violent and abhorrent behavior. And so if you look at gun culture, it’s all about finding ways to glorify people who have used guns to solve problems, who have resorted to violence because that was the only course of action, and you have this entire group of people that dream up scenarios where violence is the noble thing to do. This extends into police culture and into a lot of things, and it’s tied to toxic masculinity.
Brandon: This movie kinda has a reputation for being edgy, but one interesting thing they could have done is just let Arthur Fleck be a terrible irredeemable person, but they didn’t do that. They constructed an entire world to be mean to him and unfair to him so he would have to resort to violence. It’s like incel fan fiction.
Lady Bird (2017) vs. Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Maria and Brandon talk about what they like in horror movies, Halloween traditions, and their favorites in the genre.
Intro by Brandon
Terminator 2 is the best action movie of all time. It has two robots fighting, a smart science fiction plot, and Sarah Connor, who is very hot. It also has a 10-year-old John Connor, played by a kid who was 14 and was dating a 28-year-old woman.
The plot follows both Connors as they try to stop the impending robopocalypse of 1997. The robots send the T-1000 terminator to kill John Connor, and John Connor sends a reprogrammed T-800 Arnold Schwarzenegger model to fight the T-1000 and protect John Connor. John finds in the T-800 the father figure he never had, since his father was killed in the first movie. Sarah is generally a badass and is really good at blowing things up.
After being traumatized by the terminator in the first movie, Sarah is imprisoned in a psychiatric ward, where she is abused because they think she’s crazy. And that right there is our dilemma: that there seems to be an acceptable pattern of abuse if someone is crazy. So we talk about that. We also talk about how inconsistent John Connor’s character was in the film.
So buckle in, bust out your best one-liners, and get ready for us to talk about this stellar action film in this episode of Peculiar Picture Show, the podcast that talks about movies, maladies, and mental health. And Sarah Connor.
Brandon: In the running for top two action films of all time; more intellectual than some action movies; this made it easy to talk about artificial intelligence and its potential impacts
Maria: T2 Universal ride; no point in this movie where I’m bored; interesting things about artificial intelligence; this films runs 24/7 in my house
Brandon: So many things this movie does well, especially action scenes and special/practical effects; effective sci-fi film; entertaining; Linda Hamilton; character of the T-1000 is clear even when played by different actors
Maria: Practical/special effects; entertaining; good example of an action movie
Brandon: John Connor’s character; showing its roots as a 90s movie
Maria: John Connor is supposed to be 10? WTF
Brandon: Common trope that someone has seen something so outlandish that everyone thinks they are crazy (gaslighting), but makes you wonder, what would people do if she actually was going through a psychotic episode? Dehumanization of psychiatric patients
Maria: State hospitalizations/institutions
Joker (2019) vs. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Intro by Maria
Which version of Batman do you like best? Is it the corny 1960s Adam West climbing-up-walls-that-are-clearly-just-floors Batman? Is it the new Ben Affleck Batman? Oh, maybe you’re a fan of the 1990s animated Batman. How about the he-has-a-temper Christian Bale Batman? There’s so many Batmans.
Of course I like the Tim Burton, Michael Keaton Batman, or as I like to call every single role Micheal Keaton has ever done: The Batman where Beetlejuice is just brimming at the surface. Seriously. I dare you to watch a movie with Micheal Keaton and not recognize that smug Beetlejuice voice at some point during his performance. It’s the same voice. I just can’t help but see it.
Anyway, in this episode, Brandon and I explore Michael Keaton’s Batman. Well, maybe not really Michael Keaton’s Batman. The movie is called Batman Returns, but it’s the sequel to the first Tim Burton Batman movie, and the other characters in this movie seem to steal the show away from the bat man himself. I mean, no one can deny that Danny DeVito is revolting and over-the-top as the abandoned orphan who becomes the Penguin. And because of this, we love him.
And then there’s Michelle Pfeiffer who plays Catwoman, a role that seems to have been made for her since she plays the character with such naturalness and ease. She really outshines everyone in the movie. So much so that it leaves Brandon and I to ponder this: Is this really a Batman movie, or is it a Catwoman one?
As for the plot of the movie, it’s not terribly important. Here are the highlights: It’s a superhero movie with a dark Tim Burton twist, but with heavy-handed feminist undertones that lack follow through and authenticity. It’s a Christmas movie, so it’s good to watch during the months of November and December. Oh, and Batman kills tons of people. Christopher Walken is the business tycoon evil villain, with the Penguin and Catwoman as villains too, but more sympathetic, perhaps, as both are victims of trauma.
But that’s really all you need to know. Oh yeah, and there’s one last Batman I didn’t mention. Well, there’s tons, but remember when the Batman movies started to be totally cheesy? This began with Val Kilmer nipples-on-the-suit Batman, a movie called Batman Forever. You know, that one with Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face and Jim Carrey as the Riddler? Then after that movie, there was one of the worst movies ever made, called Batman & Robin with George Clooney as the Batman.
Well, you know who is to blame for these very bad Batman movies? Tim Burton and this movie! That’s right. People thought this version of Batman was too dark (which is hilarious because we literally get the Dark Knight Batman in 2005), and so they didn’t want Burton to make the third iteration, instead opting for the lighter Joel Schumacher shitty versions that we now have today. So blame it all on Tim Burton and you can blame it all on the 90s. And that’s really it. That’s all on the next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Elevated empathy in adults following childhood trauma: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6169872/
New York Times article on violence against women in the movies:
Brandon: Protective of this movie and the leaks that went out regarding it
Maria: Sequel; my pick; this movie caused the cheesier Batman movies; Burton only did this movie because they gave him creative control
Brandon: Musical score; Michelle Pfeiffer is a badass, and Catwoman is the best thing about this film;
Maria: Everything; Tim Burton; style; music; art direction; set design; weird, strange, and dark; Christmas movie; not a kid’s movie; characters; funny; nostalgia
Brandon: Feminist language done at the last minute as a script revision; this movie is in a weird, in-between place that is not for kids but not really for adults; Michael Keaton’s role as Batman, and the character of Batman is a bumbling idiot and not what was expected; Catwoman’s beef with Batman
Maria: Corny; surface-level feminism
Brandon: Violence against women in the movies during that time
Maria: Are superheroes and villains all just victims of trauma, and are there “good” things about experiencing trauma?
Stand by Me (1986) vs. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Intro by Brandon
The 1977 film Annie Hall is a bit of a paradox. It’s a romantic comedy that’s actually a tragedy about breaking up. It’s an intellectual movie that articulates how being too intellectual can kill a relationship. It’s also a commentary on how men can be jerks when they date younger women, written by a guy who had a thing for really young women. All in all, this is a great intellectual film that doesn’t fail to entertain, and it won four Oscars the year it came out, so it got the recognition it deserved.
The plot follows Alvy Singer, an intelligent and witty man, and the eponymous Annie Hall, an intelligent and witty woman. Most films would show these two falling in love, and this film does show that, but more than that, this film shows us why they fell out of love. Falling in love is just a backdrop; this is a story of what went wrong. This movie goes deeper with that theme than other similar films, and the writing is brilliant, so this is very much a film that holds up well today.
As the history of Woody Allen unfolded through the years, we eventually discovered him to be a bit… problematic. So yes, we get into that, and we spend some time talking about whether it’s OK to like good art from bad artists. We also spend some time talking about age gaps in romantic relationships and how mental health was viewed in the middle of the 20th Century.
So grab your favorite modern philosopher and a bunch of lobsters, we’re going to dive into this reflective and intellectual romantic comedy in this episode of Peculiar Picture Show, the podcast that talks about movies, maladies, and mental health.
Maria and Brandon have a candid conversation about dealing with grief, society’s folly when dealing with grieving people, and a few movies that deal well with grief.
Brandon and Maria rank their top three (or four) Marvel films. Maria picks films that are just more entertaining, whether they are funny, Rated R, or contain a hot Cate Blanchett. Brandon picks films that are deep and tell a human story. Obviously we know who is the better person from these choices.
Maria
Brandon
Trigger Warning
Before we get into the next episode of Peculiar Picture Show, I wanted to take a couple of minutes to warn our listeners out there that this episode talks in depth about potentially disturbing situations, like rape and violence. If these subjects are too sensitive for you, please go ahead and skip this episode.
Thank you, and if you listen, enjoy the show.
…
The first part of the 2016 movie Elle can seem pretty shocking. The scene opens with the sounds of Michele, the protagonist, getting brutally raped. When it’s over, however, and the rapist leaves Michele bleeding on the ground, our protagonist gets up, cleans up the mess, takes a bath, and orders sushi. It’s a seemingly unconventional reaction to a traumatizing event, and it’s that reaction and Michele’s very nature that challenges us and our preconceived notions about how people should react to traumatizing events.
As Brandon says multiple times in this episode, the movie is hard to describe in a mere line. That’s because to describe it in a simple way would do a great disservice to this complex movie. That being said, let me try to summarize.
The movie focuses on Michele, the CEO of a French video game company. She gets raped, and the rest of the movie focuses on that, but it’s not a movie driven by plot or finding this rapist. Instead, it seems to be an extreme character study of Michele and the people in her life. In fact, Michele ends up pursuing a relationship with the rapist. And yes, even after she knows he is the rapist! That’s what can be so difficult in this film: Do we like the film, or are we supposed to hate it? Should we be outraged, or do we just accept it? The movie makes us uncomfortable in this way. And that’s why I like it so much.
Dutch director Paul Verhoeven adapted this movie from a novel, but the film is still very much Verhoeven. The director is known for making uncomfortable films—violent, sexual, uncomfortable films, really. Of course this film is no exception. So what I am trying to say is get ready for a lot of discomfort because you’re gonna have plenty of it on this next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Brandon: First time watching this; unpredictable; a lot to think about
Maria: Based on book by Philippe Dijan; nominated Academy Award Best Actress; directed by Paul Verhoeven; plot seems secondary to characters
Brandon: So many things to talk about in this movie; faith commentary; redemption; complex
Maria: Performances; characterization; complex and complicated; themes; religious aspects
Brandon: Really challenged my perceptions–but that’s not something bad or negative or something to dislike; some emotion was lost in just reading subtitles
Maria: Maybe more gamergate; can see how people would be outraged, but not the fault of the film
Brandon: Grief and the reaction to it
Maria: Gamergate; shame
Brandon
It’s rare to see a redemption story that’s dark or morally ambiguous.
This woman Michelle was sexually assaulted. I did not like the way she reacted to that, but it’s not my job to dictate how people should react to the traumas they face. Just like somebody should not dictate to me how I should react to my Bipolar disorder.
Maria
Shame, its role in mental health and psychology–specifically sexual shame–is something that can really affect people.
I think a lot of my mental health issues stem from things being shameful or not talked about and the stigma that grows around that. Growing up, I had a lot of things that I didn’t know that were OK going on in my body as a young girl because nobody talked about it.
Annie Hall (1977) vs. Little Women (2019)
Intro by Brandon
Are you mad as hell? Are you not going to take it anymore? You can bet a lot of people today are, and a lot of that stems from news networks that have turned journalism into loaded commentary. That right there is why Network, a 1976 film about the television industry, is still relevant. For many today, favorite political commentators are viewed as religious figures. In this era of Fox News and sensationalized media, Network is the satirical comedy we need.
The plot follows Howard Beale, an aging television news anchor, as he finds out that he is being unceremoniously fired at the end of the week. He resolves to kill himself live on the air. And then he announces that he’s going to kill himself live on the air. And then he starts ranting and raving about all the bullshit he has to deal with, and they keep putting him back on the air because he gives voice to the anger so many people had. He gets his own show to talk about how fucked up society is, and audiences eat it up, and things keep spiraling out of control as he gains more and more viewers, and HOLY SHIT this movie is bananas!
There’s a lot to talk about here, especially since Howard Beale is pretty much explicitly stated in the film to have a mental illness. Maria spends some time talking about the exploitation of mental illness in the entertainment industry. I take a look at why angry news is so popular and what anger does to our perception of the truth. We also talk about that Hollywood trope where young women end up with old men, because, eugh, that’s pretty creepy.
So settle in, get mad as hell, and get ready for Maria and I to not take it anymore in this oddly relevant episode of Peculiar Picture Show, the podcast that talks about movies, maladies, and mental health.
Brandon: Huge impact when it first came out, and then people thought it was no longer relevant, but now more relevant than ever; forgot about the absurdity in this movie; the first time, missed the romance to show generational divide, particularly in relation to TV/film, not just for romance
Maria: Director Sidney Lumet also directed Dog Day Afternoon, which has a similar style; first time seeing this; maybe loosely based Christine Chubbuck, a Sarasota news reporter who killed herself on air in 1974
Brandon: Performances; some things were surprising this time around; subtlety; themes, like sensationalized media; 1970s raw style; fun; religious aspects
Maria: The message, like the blur between news and entertainment; absurdity, particularly at the end; performances; very 1970s
Brandon: The older man/younger woman relationship, particularly how they made the woman’s personality; understand how it can be boring; blind commentary on TV culture, which seemed outdated
Maria: The older man/younger woman relationship; wanted it to be more absurd in the beginning; a tad boring; not a good beginning
Brandon: Sensationalized media; research on how angry people are more susceptible to misinformation; capitalism as the new religion
Maria: Condemns the exploitation of people who are suffering and vulnerable; seems to simplify mental illness
Brandon
I won’t say this movie tried to warn us, but this is a very neat summary of what’s going on….this was intended to be a satire and it’s so close to reality that it’s depressing now.
Maria
Keep fighting the good fight, people.
Maria is just getting back from vacation. Brandon has pneumonia (again). So Brandon tells Maria (and you) the story of when he wrote Royal Caribbean cruiseline asking them to host a formal cat wedding. Complete correspondence below.
Dear Royal Caribbean,
I was hoping Royal Caribbean would be able to accommodate my family for a very special event. I would like to host a formal wedding for my cats, Zooey Glass and Francesca Rosaline Alexandria Gregory III. Franny is a Ragdoll/Himalayan mix that we adopted in 2006 and Zooey is a Snowshoe that we adopted in 2007. They’ve become quite close over the years and we think it’s time to make this official. If it’s a matter of money, don’t worry–we can pay for their stateroom. Do you have special services for honeymooners? They would mostly stay in their stateroom, although they would likely attend dinner in the dining room with the rest of us. (Don’t worry–we will ensure that the dress code is adhered to!) Is this something you can accommodate? Thank you for your response!
Brandon Gregory
Dear Mr. Gregory:
Thank you for your email. Please accept our apologies for the extended delay in our response. More customers than ever before are choosing the convenience of email as their primary mode of communication. As a result, the turnaround time for responses has increased. Acknowledging that this delay is unacceptable regardless of cause, we hope you will accept our regrets, and believe that this is not indicative of our normal operations. We are sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused.
We are truly honored that you have considered Royal Caribbean International to help facilitate a wedding for your cats. Regrettably, Royal Caribbean International does not allow pets onboard its ships, with the exception of certified service animals. We apologize for any disappointment this may cause.
As a Gold member with our Crown & Anchor Society, we value your loyalty and appreciate this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. The Crown & Anchor Society was created to show how much we appreciate you by offering recognition programs, members-only benefits, and valued rewards. To view a complete list of member benefits available to you please visit: http://www.royalcaribbean.com/cas/benefitsLoggedout.do.
Mr. Gregory, thank you for choosing Royal Caribbean International. We are eager to show you the personalized Gold Anchor Standard service that keeps our guests loyal to Royal Caribbean International, and we look forward to sharing millions of wonderful memories to come.
Sincerely,
[name redacted]
Customer Service Representative
Dear Royal Caribbean,
This is fantastic news, as both Franny and Zooey are certified service animals! I have mobility issues and am deathly allergic to mice. The cats have kept me safe on a number of occasions. The cats unfortunately don’t qualify as service animals by American standards, but we were able to get them certified in South Africa. Does this count? I’m also teaching them how to count and identify loose papers. I might be able to get them American-certified in time for the wedding. Do you offer any drink packages to honeymooning service animals? Thank you for your response!
Brandon Gregory
Dear Mr. Gregory:
Thank you for your email. Please accept our apologies for the extended delay in our response.
For cruising purposes, a service animal is defined as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability. Animals that do not meet this definition, such as service dogs in training, emotional support dogs and animals other than dogs, may be accepted only with pre-cruise approval. Because the animals in question are not dogs, approval must be granted in advance by our Access Department to allow them to sail. To submit your service animal request, please contact our Access Department by phone at [phone number redacted]. Notice should be given no later than 60 days prior to the sailing date.
Please note, due to strict United Kingdom regulations, service dogs are not permitted on cruises to the United Kingdom, with the exception of the Independence of the Seas’ sailings.
Kindly note that guests are responsible for obtaining all documents required for service dogs to depart the ship in non-United States ports. A copy of these documents must be carried on the ship, and the copy must be left with Guest Relations Desk upon boarding.
Unfortunately, although we offer a variety of beverage packages, they are limited to humans only. We apologize for any disappointment this answer may cause.
We look forward to welcoming you aboard soon. Whether you are interested in Caribbean beaches, Alaskan glaciers, European history, or the beautiful landscapes of Asia, Royal Caribbean International can take you there, with world-class entertainment, delicious food, and exciting onboard activities. We invite you to sail with us on the Oasis of the Seas or the Allure of the Seas, which both include a living garden, onboard zip line, the FlowRider Surf Simulator, and more. We also encourage you to consider our newest ships, the Quantum of the Seas and the Anthem of the Seas, featuring the RipCord by iFly skydiving simulator and the North Star, which allows guests spectacular views above the ship and over the ocean.
Mr. Gregory, thank you for choosing Royal Caribbean International.
Sincerely,
[name redacted]
Customer Service Representative
For the record, aside from not hosting cat weddings, Royal Caribbean has been pretty awesome.
We will resume next episode with our typical format of talking about movies, maladies, and mental health with the movie Network.
Since radioactive spider was already taken, Maria and Brandon talk about the origins of their superpowers: bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. Tune in for some early stories of heroism and even some villains.
Intro by Maria
The 2013 film Her can seem like an unappealing premise for a movie: A guy falls in love with a computer operating system. Yeah, right. Not sure how they’re going to make that work.
Well, that’s what I thought. So I avoided watching the movie, and apparently Brandon did too, but I did eventually end up watching it somehow or another, and it actually wasn’t bad. The movie toys with ideas that are fun to think about, like what constitutes a human being and how technology may be helping or harming us. What it lacks in entertainment value, it makes up for with these ideas.
So it’s kinda fun to watch, but it’s really fun to think about, and think we do. I talk about how this movie reminds me of what’s going on right now with COVID-19, and Brandon discusses tons of things, including why so many artificial intelligence assistants have female voices.
That’s really all I have as an introduction to this episode. I know it was short, but we make up for it during the episode, so get ready for all these deep thoughts with just a hint of some artificial intelligence on this next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Brandon: Chose this; avoided because of the concept; movie is feelings heavy, yet deep; won some awards, including best screenplay at Academy Awards and best depiction of nudity, sexuality, or seduction from the Alliance of Women Film Journalists
Maria: Saw it before; avoided because of the concept;
Brandon: Director; style; music; vibe; a lot to think about; interpretation left up to the viewers, and it’s OK
Maria: Interesting to think about, especially in relation to 2013
Brandon: creepy character; split this into several viewings
Maria: Kinda bored this time around; creepy character
Brandon: Lots of AI assistants voiced by females, and no real explanation; analysis of why Theodore and Samantha fall in love
Maria: Technology and its pros and cons; COVID-19 tie ins; manmade vs. natural
Brandon
I’m glad I watched it, but I wasn’t glad when I was watching it.
Winner in bold.
Network (1976) vs. Closer (2004)
The Oscars for 2020 films have come and gone, which means it’s time for Maria and Brandon to talk about last year’s films, the showings at the Oscars, and their new picks to add to their list of films to cover in this podcast.
Academy Best Picture: Nomadland – A woman in her sixties who, after losing everything in the Great Recession, embarks on a journey through the American West, living as a van-dwelling modern-day nomad.
Academy Best Adapted Screenplay: The Father – All Bimbo ever wanted was to be a father to his children and a husband to his wife, but providence has a different plan altogether.
Academy Best Original Screenplay: Promising Young Woman – Nothing in Cassie’s life is what it appears to be—she’s wickedly smart, tantalizingly cunning, and she’s living a secret double life by night. Now, an unexpected encounter is about to give Cassie a chance to right the wrongs from the past.
Brandon’s Pick: Palm Springs – Stuck in a time loop, two wedding guests develop a budding romance while living the same day over and over again.
Brandon’s Pick – Minority Voices – Da 5 Bloods – Four African American vets battle the forces of man and nature when they return to Vietnam seeking the remains of their fallen squad leader and the gold fortune he helped them hide.
Brandon’s Retro Pick – Frances Ha (2012) – A story that follows a New York woman who doesn’t really have an apartment. She apprentices for a dance company, although she’s not really a dancer, and throws herself headlong into her dreams.
Maria’s Pick: The Sound of Metal – A heavy-metal drummer’s life is thrown into freefall when he begins to lose his hearing.
Maria’s Pick – Minority Voices – Forty-Year-Old Version (not virgin) – A down-on-her-luck playwright thinks the only way she can salvage her voice as an artist is to become a rapper at 40.
Maria’s Retro Pick – Double Trouble – Black Book (2006) and Elle (2016) –
Black Book: After narrowly escaping death, young Rachel Rosenthal becomes part of the Jewish resistance, assuming the name Ellis de Vries. Her superiors order her to seduce a Gestapo officer named Ludwig. Ellis is successful in her mission but soon finds herself falling in love with her mortal enemy.
Elle: A successful and ruthless video game company CEO attempts to track down the man who had assaulted her in her home. Soon, she is thrown into a massive cat-and-mouse chase with no end in sight.
Intro by Brandon
The Big Lebowski is unabashedly a 90s comedy. It’s the mix of dark comedy and apathy that would hardly be around in a decade. In fact, it’s such a 90s film that it’s hard to really see the appeal if you didn’t spend your formative teenage or young adult years in the 90s. For this 90s kid, though, it’s a solid classic. This is in my top three comedies of all time, along with A Fish Called Wanda and Airplane!, two classics from the 80s.
The plot of this film follows Jeff Lebowski, or, as he would introduce himself, “The Dude.” The Dude is a deadbeat with no job and no real purpose in life, and yet he’s the hero of our story. He finds himself surrounded by warring ideologies and rising tensions that drag him into a kidnapping investigation that involves porn stars, Nihilists, a snobby artist, a guy named Jesus, and much more. Also, there’s bowling.
What sets this film apart, though, is the layering of philosophy and intelligent political commentary underneath all that disaffected humor. It took me a while to catch onto what the film was actually trying to say, but there’s a lot of surprising depth in this film about politics in the 90s and the trajectory we’re still on today. Maria also gets into some of the philosophical aspects of the film, which are also surprisingly sharp.
That’s not to say that this film is perfect. Like a lot of the 90s movies we’re revisiting, we’re discovering that there are a lot of things we didn’t care about in the 90s that we really should have. It feels kind of weird to look back to a film from 1998 and say, “It was a different time,” but we found ourselves doing a bit of that. As Walter said, “This is not ‘Nam—there are rules.” Still, there’s much more to like here than to hate.
So grab your bowling shoes, mix yourself a white Russian, and mark it zero as Maria and I dig into this entertaining and surprisingly intelligent film in this episode of Peculiar Picture Show, the podcast that talks about movies, maladies, and mental health!
Brandon: Quintessential 90s comedy; cult classics; gets better on repeat viewings; John Goodman’s favorite role to play
Maria: Profanity: about 281 fucks in 117 minutes, 2.4 fucks/minute; first time seeing this; Dudeism as a religion
Brandon: Fun comedy; enjoy the characters; set in a specific time—90s; morality tale for the common age; polarization of politics and moral discourse in America
Maria: Pretty fucking funny; movie begs for analysis and study; many themes; genre play; Sam Elliot; meta parts; framing
Brandon: Sometimes these 90s films seem sophomoric, antiquated, particularly regarding “not caring”; lack of BIPOC stands out now; quotes may get stale
Maria: Cannot stand the Dude personality type, which is why I could never watch it before; Dude lacks efficient and clear communication skills
Brandon: Psychology behind why we get so mad about politics; identity vs. politics; anger makes people more susceptible to misinformation; connection between emotion, fear, anger, misinformation; fight-or-flight response regarding politics; echo chambers
Maria: Philosophies in the film: pacifism, nihilism, national socialism, capitalism; nihilism vs. existentialism vs. absurdism; in some ways, the Dude is embracing nihilism/existentialism/absurdism, creating his own meaning for existence (the rug)
Brandon
This movie is kind of about the death of civil discourse around politics, where everybody was so angry all of the time, and you have that one guy who doesn’t have an opinion and doesn’t care and he ends up dying because of the conflict. It’s about the death of not having an opinion—the freedom of not being able to give a fuck about things.
Maria
In some ways the Dude is embracing nihilism and absurdism even though they talk about nihilism being bad. The Dude creates his own meaning for existence. His reason for being is the rug! It really tied the room together.
Maria and Brandon randomly chose the same movie.
Her (2013) vs. Her (2013)
Intro by Maria
The 2007 film There Will Be Blood acts like a master class in how to create an award-winning drama—it’s hard to argue against grandiose shots of oil country that so perfectly characterize Daniel and his drive for money and competition.
The movie, which is loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!, tells the story of Daniel Plainview, played intensely by Daniel Day-Lewis. Daniel is looking to get rich as fast as he can, and so he develops his story—a story of a family man only looking to better communities, not break them. In reality, he is more concerned with success and money, not family or community, and he demonstrates this clearly when his adopted son H.W. gets injured in an oil accident and loses his hearing; instead of being upset by the injury, all Daniel can think about is how rich he is going to get by striking oil.
And get rich he does. We follow Daniel as he makes money and deals, gladly sacrificing his humanity as he grows wealthier and wealthier. He discovers he may have a brother but ends up killing that person when he realizes it’s not true. He sends H.W. away to school after the injury, and when H.W. returns, Daniel doesn’t even bother to learn sign language so he can communicate with his son.
Probably the most interesting relationship in the movie is that between Daniel and Eli Sunday, the local preacher and small-time con artist, or seemingly so, as he dupes his followers into believing that he is a proxy of god. Daniel and Eli obviously despise each other—Daniel hates Eli’s religious claims and Eli despises Daniel’s greed, not because Daniel is obsessed with money, but because Eli wants some of that money. He even humiliates Daniel at church, forcing him to profess that he has abandoned his child. It’s an uncomfortable scene—Daniel at the front of the church, professing his sins, while Eli slaps him and tries to dispel the evil. “That’s a pipeline,” Daniel says under his breath with a smile—it’s clear that Daniel will do anything for money.
At the end, both parties are “finished,” as Eli visits Daniel in his lonely mansion, asking for money. You see, the stock exchange has just crashed, and Eli is in bad spirits. Daniel uses the opportunity to get back at Eli. He forces Eli to confess he is a false prophet. And after that, he teases him, revealing that there’s no money for Eli, and then murders him.The movie has a lot to say about capitalism and greed, which Brandon explores fully in this episode. I take a different route, examining invisible illness and disease—like HW’s struggles with his loss of hearing. I also try my best at impersonating Daniel Plainview. So people, hold your beverages tight, because I drink your milkshake on this next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Role of religion in psychology:
Invisible illnesses/disabilities:
Brandon: First time seeing this; blown away; tough Academy Award competition
Maria: Loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!; my pick; saw in theatres; Paul Dano not originally slated to play both Sunday brothers; best milkshake joke
Brandon: Directing; editing; music, especially the burning oil rig scene; tension directly from filmmaking, rather than plot or story; first 15 minutes; connections between capitalism and religion; how capitalism replaces Christianity as the dominant faith in America; H.W. and Mary joining religion and capitalism
Maria: four distinct acts that perfectly summed up the movie; characterization; intertwining of these people’s lives and the community; musical score; cinematography
Brandon: Nothing
Maria: Can be slow for people; confused by Paul Dano playing the characters and no explanation that they were twins
Brandon: Psychological role of religion; people who are religious tend to get more religious when under stress, particular when they’re not supported by the system; the intertwining of capitalism and religion
Maria: Invisible disorders/illness; losing hearing; gaslighting
Quotes
B: Religion and spirituality is generally pretty helpful for people dealing with stress, particularly when they have little help from the system.
B: When people feel their faith is threatened, they will guard that closely, sometimes irrationally…because it’s an attack on some of the deepest foundational parts of who they are.
B: We see people defending capitalism the same way we see people defending their faith. There’s this really unhealthy union of capitalism and politics and religion. It’s so intertwined that if someone perceives an attack on capitalism it can feel like a crisis of faith.
B: People a lot of times will look at religion and say, because religion exists, justice exists in the world. Good things will come to good people, and bad things will come to bad people. That’s the justice that exists because of religion. And people have the same idea about capitalism. Capitalism rewards good people and it punishes bad people, and they just have faith in this system that will provide the justice they want, and it’s normally people who have already succeeded that believe this justice exists.
New process: Both Maria and Brandon pick a random movie, and then they decide on one of the two. Winner in bold.
The Big Lebowski (1998) vs. Memento (2000)
Intro by Maria
This next movie is one of my favorite films of all time. It’s the John Waters film Serial Mom. The movie is from 1994, which as I explain during the episode, is apparently the defining movie year for me, your host—or one of your hosts—Maria Milazzo, and really a kind of important year for me in terms of mental health, as that’s when I was 14 years old, and if you’ve been listening to this podcast, you know that was around the time I was going through some trauma.
But unlike the movie Natural Born Killers, which is also from 1994, and a movie Brandon and I talked about on an episode a while ago (check it out if you have a chance), I don’t think my love for Serial Mom is related to nostalgia and connecting it to important milestones, like perhaps my affection for Natural Born Killers is.
No, I just love this movie to death. Much like I love the movie I Love You to Death, but maybe that’s in a future episode. This is about Serial Mom, and this introduction is supposed to give you a brief synopsis of the plot, so here I go.
Beverly Sutphin is your “typical housewife” and mother—she sews, makes meatloaf, and brings fruitcake for her son’s teacher at their parent-teacher conference. Pretty regular, right? Well, we soon discover she also loves prank calling and harassing a neighbor who took her parking place one time at a grocery store, a long time ago. And then she kills her son’s teacher.
Beverly Sutphin is Serial Mom, a murdering mother of a fucker, bringing judgment to the especially nasty—the cheating boyfriend, the condescending teacher, the mean lady who doesn’t rewind her video tapes. Beverly gets caught, goes to trial, and ends up being released just to immediately kill again—a lady—a juror—played by Patricia Hearst—who wears white after Labor Day.
The movie is a dark comedy written and directed by the King of Filth himself, John Waters. Waters, known for raunchy films like Pink Flamingos and Female Trouble and more tame ones like Hairspray and this one, has a knack for telling stories that comment on social norms, and in this one, that’s exactly what he does, commenting upon what we think is right and wrong, America’s true crime obsession, and the death penalty. This movie is very much anti-death penalty, so Brandon spends some time talking about that while I propose this movie becomes our movie mascot. That’s it in a nutshell, so just pour yourself a big old glass of whole milk, sit down, and get ready to experience our love of John Waters on this next episode of Peculiar Picture Show.
Brandon: First time seeing this; movie is deep
Maria: Chose this; favorites; John Waters is special
Brandon: Humor; church scene; closing scene; anti-death penalty sentiment
Maria: Hilarious; really knows how to set tone; commentary on American obsession with true crime; L7 as Camel Lips; musical score
Brandon: Its subtlety may be lost to some; really nothing
Maria: Nothing, sorry
Brandon: Why do we still have the death penalty? Death penalty and it being the result of an emotional reaction to a terrifying event
Maria: Should be our podcast’s movie mascot because this movie tries to break down stigma, and so do we
B: The death penalty is an emotional reaction to a dramatic and terrible event. It is a terrible event, but it is an emotional reaction because a lot of people don’t understand what the legal process is. They make an emotional decision based on how much they hate this person. In that light, if they are making an emotional decision to kill someone, is that any different than the person who made an emotional decision to murder someone? That’s the whole point this movie is making—there is no difference.
M: I would like to propose that this movie be the official movie mascot for our podcast just because John Waters does what we are trying to do with our podcast—he is trying to break down social norms, stigmas, and things related to marginalized people or people who live outside of the so-called norm, and he tries to make us re-think about how we think people should be.
There Will Be Blood (2007)
I recently watched Ready Player One for the first time. Here’s a (very) loose synopsis of the plot. A young male player named Parzival competes in games for a fantastic prize. He meets Art3mis, a young female player known for being one of the best in the game, who plays for a more noble cause than Parzival. Art3mis teaches Parzival to play for a higher purpose and helps him succeed. In the end, Parzival is declared the winner and he chooses Art3mis to stand by his side.
This is an odd comparison, but the story reminded me of Harry Potter. Harry knows nothing of the wizarding world when he goes off to Hogwarts, and he meets Hermione, who is probably the smartest girl in school and is pretty much better than Harry at everything. She educates him about magic and the wizarding world and even sets him straight a few times when he begins to stray morally. In the end, Harry wins the battle against the villain Voldemort with Hermione and his friend Ron at his side.
That also reminded me of The Lego Movie. In that film, Emmet, a young man who’s pretty incompetent at everything, unwittingly finds an artifact of great power. He meets Wyldstyle, a badass young woman who has been searching for the artifact for some time and is incredibly competent at just about everything she does. Wyldstyle guides Emmet along his journey. You can guess where this is going. Emmet is the hero and Wyldstyle is the sidekick.
In Western media—movies, books, television, and even video games—it’s not uncommon to have a strong female character. Thankfully, we’re way past the need of every story to have a damsel in distress, but now we’re on to the next problem. These strong female characters are often among the smartest, bravest, and most capable of all their comrades. But even when there’s a strong female character, even if that female character is significantly more talented than the male lead, she doesn’t get to be the hero. In fact, she’s usually the one who has to coach the incompetent male lead to greatness so he can win the prize. In the movies, and in most Western media, if you’re a girl, it’s alright to be the best, but it’s not alright to win.
This isn’t always true, of course. There are stories where women get to be the hero, such as Rogue One and Zootopia, and even 1951’s The African Queen. The idea of a female hero is not unheard of, nor is it a recent invention, although it’s certainly not a popular notion even today. But even films that feature a female hero can fall prey to other problems.
There was a study of dialogue in 2,000 screenplays published in April, 2016 that was pretty eye-opening when I found it. It actually calculates, for each script in the study, what percentage of the dialogue comes from males and what percentage comes from females. Male dialog dominated the list. 58 movies on the list were made up of 100% male dialog. By comparison, there were 58 movies made up of 74% or more female dialog. Even movies primarily about women, like Disney princess movies, were usually predominantly male dialog—Frozen, a movie about two sisters, was 57% male. According to another article with similar data, Rogue One, with the very heroic Jyn Erso in the lead, contained only 9% female dialogue.
So why is this? Why would women be given such little importance in the films we watch? There are a few reasons.
I’ve mentioned this in other episodes, but I write my own movie reviews for classic films. That’s BrandonTalksMovies.com, if you’re interested. I have 183 movie reviews on this site. Want to guess how many of those were directed by women? I’m somewhat ashamed to admit this. Here’s a list:
That’s right, 5 out of 183—just shy of 3%. And two of these films had a co-director who was male. Even films that are deeply feminist, such as Colossal, were given to males to direct. Now, the directors aren’t making most of the decisions about which roles to give to women and which to give to men—that power is in the hands of the writers. I unfortunately am not tracking the writers of the films with my list, so I don’t have complete data on this, but I did spot-check a few titles and I saw a similar problem with the writers: they’re predominantly male.
If most of the writers and directors of big-budget films are males, of course there’s going to be a skew in female representation. Most writers of any medium write heavily out of their own experiences. And, yes, there are some men that are writing and directing films that are empowering for women, such as Nacho Vigalondo who wrote and directed Colossal, which had a great message for women suffering from abuse. But as long as we have this skew in writers and directors, we’ll have this skew in film.
So, the bigger question: why aren’t we seeing more women write and direct movies? Well, there are a few reasons, some seemingly benign and some really problematic. Moviemaking is much like any other job in that the producers look at past work and experience before hiring someone. Males have dominated the industry pretty much since its inception, so of course they have more experience, which means they keep getting hired for bigger and bigger films. Hiring a less-experienced woman is viewed as a professional risk for moviemakers, and when you’re dealing with budgets in the millions of dollars (often more), it’s a risk many are not willing to take. Change is needed, but it won’t be easy.
But there are some other reasons that are less practical. Male directors make a lot of lousy movies, but we never hear Hollywood say, “Well, that’s the last time we’re hiring a man for that!” It’s not that men make better movies than women—behind the camera, men just get more chances than women do. Because men are the default option, they’re not blamed for mediocrity, but women are—women directors are seen as risks, so they’re expected to achieve excellence or take the blame for the failure.
My favorite film, Lost in Translation, was written and directed by a woman. It’s very different than mainstream films, and it’s a reminder that we’ll get some amazing new perspectives as we start giving women more power and more of a voice to tell their stories. But, whether it’s true or not, there are some perceived risks involved in solving this problem. Moviegoers need to reward these risks for moviemakers to keep taking them—and that right there is the other half of this problem.
Remember when they announced an all-female Ghostbusters and the internet shit its pants? Yes, I know, it wasn’t the best remake, but the backlash started well before the film was released, with a ridiculous amount of downvotes on the official YouTube trailer and a deluge of premature one-star reviews on IMDB. Some IMDB demographics on raters reveal that, even after the film’s release, men rated it significantly lower than women. What’s with the hate?
The idea of empowering women is actually a popular one nowadays, but the practice of doing so is less developed. Moviemaking is a business like any other, and rarely do studios afford filmmakers the purity of making films solely to put a good message out there. Studios make movies to make money, and that means focusing on popular ideas. Empowering women is, thankfully, a popular idea today. Hurray! Unfortunately, largely due to the gender imbalance in the industry, big film studios are woefully unaware of what it actually means to make a film that empowers women.
Going back to Ghostbusters, I actually missed seeing it, but based on the post-release reviews, it was pretty clear that the focus wasn’t on telling an amazing story or offering something significantly different and improved over the original. There were some clever jokes in there achieved by switching the genders (most notably, Chris Hemsworth’s character Kevin, who is given the same shallow eye-candy role as the female receptionist in the original, playing the double standard for laughs), but most people agreed that the film paled in comparison to its source material. Regardless of the intent, this attempt at female empowerment comes off as a gimmick employed to cash in on society’s desire to empower women rather than a serious effort to actually do so.
And, sadly, that’s not the only example. The recent gender-swapped Overboard only got a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. Ocean’s 8 was a valiant effort but came in with a 68%. Going back further, a gender-swapped reboot of The Karate Kid in 1994, starring Hilary Swank, got a measly 7%. (If you’re wondering, these were all directed by men.) What’s going on?
There’s a concept called the pink tax that describes an unfortunate reality for women. Razors, clothing, personal care products, and many other things are marketed separately to each gender, and the feminine versions are almost inevitably either higher in price or lower in quality—or both. Women pay a premium for products made for them.
The wave of lousy gender-swapped reboots and poorly-scripted female empowerment films is Hollywood’s version of the pink tax—the premium women pay to see movies about them is usually lower quality and a lower budget. In most cases, filmmakers don’t care about empowering women—they care about making money, and they see female empowerment as a marketing tactic that will sell more tickets. And this is, unfortunately, hurting the viewing public’s image of female empowerment movies.
But the problem is bigger than that. Yes, there are some viewers who have caught on to the trend of false female empowerment and roll their eyes when a female-led film is announced; but there are just as many men who truly believe women don’t deserve a chance in the spotlight. The excellent Mad Max: Fury Road had an amazingly competent female lead in Imperator Furiosa and men attacked her specifically, saying that women had no place in an action movie. When the BBC cast the very capable Jodie Whittaker as the next Doctor Who, men threatened a boycott. And, I hate to keep harping on this, but remember that the brutal backlash against the new Ghostbusters began well before anyone knew how good it would be. For these angry critics, all those ill-conceived grabs at the female moviewatcher market we mentioned before seem to confirm their deeply ingrained beliefs that male characters are just better.
Regardless of why it’s happening, it’s clear that many male viewers simply don’t want strong female leads. Of course, there are many who do, but studios who make a decision to earnestly empower women in their movies run the risk of incurring the wrath of angry fanboy audiences. This is another case of bias reinforcing bias. If you’re wondering why we talk about things like racism and misogyny on this podcast, it’s because of this: those things are legitimately hurting the film industry.
As I mentioned, this has had an impact on female characters not getting the same opportunities as male characters. This, of course, impacts actresses with both their job prospects and paychecks. But it also impacts what movies and media are being made, and that difference can be huge.
Wonder Woman was a huge hit and the studio got behind it in a real way, giving it a budget of around $149 million and letting a great female director take the helm. This was a huge success and the movie ended up being the third highest grossing in the studio’s history. But the studio wasn’t quite as sure about this film as some of its other efforts. The godawful Batman v Superman was given a budget $100 million higher than Wonder Woman, and the director’s salary was quite a bit higher as well.
Oh, but that was Zack Snyder’s second film with the studio. For a fair comparison, let’s look at his first: Man of Steel. Well, that one also had a budget quite a bit higher than Wonder Woman—$75 million higher.
Did those extra dollars pay off? According to Rotten Tomatoes, Man of Steel has a score of 55%; Batman v Superman has 27%. Wonder Woman has a 93%. And director Patty Jenkins still had to fight to get the salary she wanted for the sequel—an amount equal to what Zack Snyder was paid for Batman v Superman.
Now, I’m not bashing Warner Brothers here. They made sure Wonder Woman had the resources it needed, and they had the guts to really make this a female-led film rather than just another superhero film that featured females. And it was no doubt because of Wonder Woman’s success that Marvel went back on their original statement that Black Widow would not have her own solo film—trailers are out for it, and it has a female director. But female-led films are still viewed as risky by most major studios, and that’s undoubtedly holding other stories back.
Television has similar problems. The Legend of Korra, an amazing follow-up series to Nickelodeon’s Avatar: the Last Airbender, features a female protagonist, but it almost didn’t—the studio tried to get the show makers to switch Korra’s gender, and production was delayed as the writers refused to back down. The writers fought for and won their case, and it paid off, but the fact that they had to fight for what was their best writing is a symptom of this problem.
Video games suffer as well. Life is Strange, featuring some of the best writing I’ve seen in any game, has a female protagonist and a female sidekick. When small game developer Don’t Nod started shopping around for a larger studio to finance the game’s development, they were met with closed door after closed door. They finally found one major studio, Square Enix, that was willing to finance the game (and this game was way outside of their wheelhouse). Having played