New Spirit Trailer
I've really kind of reached my end with Mr. Miller after viewing the above trailer for The Spirit. Perhaps I should preface this by noting my deep disdain for Sin City, the kind of sick-'n'-twisted testosterfest in which slick style cancels out any need for a beating heart of a worthy story or moral center. Even brainless slasher films usually have their own sense of morality and character, no matter how dimly it shines. Sin City, though, is flashy, pop-art violence matched with revenge-fueled fantasies which are simply "narrative" excuses to get to more pop-art violence. There's no beating heart, no significant emotional connection, no worthwhile thematic statement, not even a cliche one. (300, though, I don't really have a problem with because in the end it's just a neat feature-length music video. It also delivers, with a wink, a series of never-back-down messages and a little sisters-are-doing-it-for-themselves empowerment on the side.)
And then here comes the trailer for The Spirit. I'm all for beefier female roles, especially in genre films. However, do we need a whole army of emaculately styled fighters who all use sexuality as their main weapon? Every Single One of Them? Every female in Sin City was an oversexualized prostitute or stripper; now we get a whole movie where barely clad women coo come-ons and double entrendees because they're all just so f-ing devoted to some man named The Spirit. I think (hope/pray) that most women will role their eyes at the film's gender relations, but there's a cult of Miller devotees out there--many of the film buff fanboys--and I wonder how Miller's works are shaping their idea of women.
And why, exactly, does Miller almost exclusively see sex as a weapon? (There's the rape in 300 and various sexual misconduct in Sin City; is love even on this guy's radar?) Has anyone bothered to ventured down that dark highway?
But maybe I'm reading into this all wrong. Is there something in The Spirit that I'm missing? Is there a good reason for Samuel L. Jackson to show up looking a villian more suited for "Kim Possible" than a supposedly adult film? Please, I want to hear a good reason for why these films shouldn't be considered completely irredeemable (other than they look neat.)
2 comments:
I have to agree that this trailer holds no interest for me. But while "Sin City" was definitely style over substance, I thought the Bruce Willis story was very good. Maybe it was just his reading of the narration, but I felt for his character.
However, do we need a whole army of emaculately styled fighters who all use sexuality as their main weapon?
Ummm...isn't this what society wants women to be anyway? (Sorry, the media doesn't actually suggest many "other roles.")
Thoughts:
I really liked "Sin City." Which may come as a surprise for some. Agree that it didn't have a moral center/significant emotional connection, but wasn't that the point. Not all art has to create an emotional connection. And Frank Miller borders on Dadaism in this regard. Sure he objectifies and degrades, but it also just looks amazing--and it's not like he's trying to evoke Ordinary People.
Also, you have to look at his traditional and target audience: Comic book writers and geeks. They are almost exclusively male, undersexed maladroits that crave exactly what people like Miller put in front of them: Sexual prowess (Bruce Willis/dude from Spirit) and a clan of kinkified women to dominate. And since i'm sure you've seen "Crumb" you know that there's a pretty deep history in comics of taking the emotion out romantic connection and replacing with pent up geek rage/fantasy.
I'm not saying I necessarily like all of it, but I do recognize it as catering, artistically, to a marginalized subculture (much the same way "Secretary" did for suburban S&M scenes--if that makes sense).
All that said, this Spirit trailer looks wonky though. But, shoot, at least there are women in the cast.
Sorry I just wrote a bible. It's a slow Wednesday in Seattle. Why haven't we talked in, like, ages?
Post a Comment