Oh, things, you know

[trinityvixen]

Weekend details below, but I thought I'd link this up here so people might actually read it: 28 Days Later - the feminist review

I found it fascinating, if a bit of a stretch. However, having been in all of two film classes where people stretched a lot further for less and with scanter evidence, I don't think Amanda's all that far off. The basic idea she's got is actually 100% correct--the changes made to the zombie genre in its most recent renaissance are indicative of a new set of fears being confronted by the public attending the movies. Some of the race/power plays she mentions being poked at in Night of the Living Dead are a bit off, though; the most subversive part of that movie is the fact that no one ever mentions the race of the lead character, not even the asshole who's constantly undermining him. Also, the zombies are totally the living dead substitutes for the PTSD'ed soldiers returned from Vietnam. So sez I.

But otherwise, I really enjoyed the review she gave, especially as it makes even more creepy the already-creepier-than-zombies end to 28 Days Later. Anyone seen any reviews of 28 Weeks Later? I wonder how that one compares...

*****

Yay for folks coming over on Friday. Not enough devouring of the junk food by other people than me, but I am glad people were over! Star Trek IV is still as funny as I remembered it being. It totally overshadowed Galaxy Quest for me (probably because I've a) seen Galaxy Quest more recently and often, and b) I harbor a little animosity towards the film now). Hurrah for drinking and trekking!

I went home for Mother's Day because my dad, in his infinite wisdom, was away for the he-man weekend (read: he plays a lot of golf with some guy friends) then. Think my mom was a weeeeee bit pissed, but we had a great time. I took her to lunch, we played Scene It--and she won! My God, I'm slipping! But seriously, there's not a whole lot you can do for your mother to ever really make up for all she's done for you. I did my best--kept the sink clear of dishes and took out garbage and picked up food wherever I could. Made sure I reassured her of the justifiably low opinion she had of this new perfume my dad bought her--it was J.Lo perfume and smelled like Eau de Miami Clubbers (Three Hours In). Gross. Oh well. She professed to having a good time, and I must be convinced she did indeed have one.

Also, on the way home, I was outside the apartment before I remembered I'd left all the laundry I brought home to do. This is okay--there was nothing in there I couldn't do without for a week or two before I get home again to pick it up. I realized only this morning that I'd forgotten to give back the change I owed her when I went to pick up last night's dinner (her request for Mother's Day: no eating in a restaurant; take out, however, was all good). So, must remember to pick up laundry and drop off $50+ in change (she only had 50ies).

Comments

Not far off, but for all the wrong reasons

[arcane-the-sage.livejournal.com]

Interesting review, but I think she came to a conclusion and then found a way to justify it after the fact. Much of the goings on in the mansion was actually trying to point out something else, however there was a bit of social commentary in there along the lines of what she's talking about.

Jim's run through the mansion, by far my favorite part of the movie, is where I think she got it wrong. The direction the filmmaker (IMO) was going was to show how little difference there was between Jim and the zombies at that point. Even the zombie solider couldn't tell right away that Jim wasn't one of his kind (the zombie actually pauses to "think about it"). The un-infected could tell at all till Jim spoke. Those scenes seem to speak more of how we let anger and fear rule us rather than speak in assigned gender-roles.

Now the rather veiled commentary that did speak towards the reviewer's point is the scene with the Valium popping. A reference to 1950's housewives, there more than anything else in the movie does it seem that film is making a social commentary that involves gender-roles. However even in that scene, the larger point that seemed to be made was the amount of control that society (in the form of those soliders) seemed to want to exercise over the individual. This was further hit home by the solider's stopping them from taking those pills (a "you will let us and like it" kind of control being exercised).

The arguments in the review are further undermined by the alternative endings for the film that are shown in the extras part of the dvd. The social commentary that the director was going for is far clearer in those scenes than in the one that made it to the movie. The film speaks more towards "civilization" as a whole rather than any sub-component there in.

Re: Not far off, but for all the wrong reasons

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Interesting review, but I think she came to a conclusion and then found a way to justify it after the fact.

So, in other words, she watched the movie, certain things impressed upon her a certain message, and, when the movie was over, she resolved that message into this review. Otherwise known as what every essayist ever does. Seriously? That sentence as criticism does not make sense unless you were intending to imply that she had somehow pre-determined the entire thesis before seeing the movie and then grabbed the nearest DVD off the shelf that she could shoe-horn into that thesis.

Jim's run through the mansion, by far my favorite part of the movie, is where I think she got it wrong.

Again, regardless of whether you agree with her thesis or not? She had evidence to back it up, and therefore she cannot be said to be wrong. This is film criticism and she met the requirements of evidence to hypothesis and allusion. If she had no evidence at all, only then could you really say she was "wrong." It's just that you take the same evidence and read it another way; that does not make you wrong and more than it makes her. I don't even necessarily agree with either of you completely (I think your interpretation is certainly, superficially, correct--within the diagetic space of the film, the characters in the end scene do have trouble separating Jim from zombie; however, Amanda's also correct in seeing that the legacy of violence that is chosen--versus being driven to out of self protection--is more like the virus than Jim is on his rampage).

The arguments in the review are further undermined by the alternative endings for the film that are shown in the extras part of the dvd.

And, for the last time, I remind you that your reading of the material, while different, does not render this inaccurate or weak for the different information you possess. In fact, the way in which you digest a narrative is singular, and it is not ever going to be the same between two different viewers (I studied narrative reception and entertainment appreciation in Australia, so we covered a lot of what I'm seeing you ignore in your response to this review; it's interesting to me, hence why I focus on it rather than argue individual points of the movie). As a moviegoer, your appreciation of a filmic narrative is determined as much by the environment around you at the time of viewing--the theater, the DVD/TV quality, the company, your own comfort--as by the script/acting/editing/direction. The film made by the director is considered the "master" narrative, but it is not the definitive narrative, especially not in the interactive world we live in now. Previously? Sure, the director/creator was the storyteller. Nowadays, we control the horizontal and vertical ourselves: we come late to the theater to avoid ads and miss the beginning of a film or we leave before the gotcha scene at the end of the credits; we leave midway through if the film is bad or broken or if the neighbors are too rowdy; we wait until the movie is on video and then we pause, rewind, fast forward, replay or skip around.

That last is most important as the advent of DVDs changes the narrative. So, you, having seen the DVD and listened to the commentaries, you're getting a very different idea of the film than someone like me who saw it first in the theater. Point of fact, with 28 Days Later there were at least two different theatrical endings. So, if you were in the audience in Oz, you got a different impression than if you saw it in New York. Does that mean that if you base your review off the New York version you're wrong? That your knowledge is incomplete is not your fault, so no. If you were writing academically, you would be obligated to do the extra research on this specific film that you seemed to have done that Amanda has not. This selection for narrative interpretation is perfectly acceptable. You can debate how her review suffers from being limited to one interpretation, but the narrative she's selected is one that many would have experienced in the theater or on DVD were they just casually interested in the film. As that's who she was writing for with her review, I do not find that her review is weak at all.

Re: Not far off, but for all the wrong reasons

[(Anonymous)]

I have to agree with Trinity, here. Of course she came to a conclusion and then found evidence for it. That's what essay-writing is all about. You see something or read something, some sort of conclusion or cohesive framework sticks out, and you look at it again and find evidence. If the evidence is there, you can build an argument about it. If it's not there, it probably wasn't a very valid conclusion.

It's been a long time since I've seen the movie so forgive me, but I don't remember anything about gender roles or housewifery. It's a movie about violence, and, well, unadulterated rage. It's about what happens when brutal, unthinking hatred and violence overcome any sense of reason, decency, or civility. Now for the soldiers this kind of thinking isn't new--they feed on it, they need it to survive, and they use it to their advantage. For Jim, only under the most dire circumstances is he overwhelmed by it, and only in the interest of protecting that which is good, civil, reasonable, decent, etc.

I agree with you that the movie is about civilization as a whole and what that means rather than simply feminism. But I would also argue that one can often judge the fairness, stability, and strength of a civilization by the way it treats its women (and its poor, and its minorities, etc.). It's not the whole thing, but it's an important part. Any society where we brutally oppress and violate others is about as sophisticated as a zombie nightmare.

Re: Not far off, but for all the wrong reasons

[moonlightalice.livejournal.com]

Uhhh I meant THIS comment was me.

Re: Not far off, but for all the wrong reasons

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

It's about what happens when brutal, unthinking hatred and violence overcome any sense of reason, decency, or civility.

Bingo. That's definitely a central theme. The fact that the virus was specifically not meant to bring the dead back to life and that it was instead infecting t hem with anger is indicative of this. It seemed really, really stupid as a zombie movie premise (THE MONKEYS HAVE RAAAAAGE), but when you get to the reveal that the infected are no better no worse than the un-infected who choose to be just as violent, it makes sense.

There's a terrific line that the major in charge of the soldiers has that he completely misses the irony of his being the one who says it: "I'll tell you what I've seen since the four weeks since the infection: people killing people. This is much the same thing I saw the four weeks before infection, and the four weeks before that and so on and so forth for as long as I can remember." Here you have it stated explicitly that this virus is only that same process (which the major was part of in his old life and seeks to resume in his new one) sped up.

[ecmyers.livejournal.com]

I've seen some favorable reviews of 28 Weeks Later. Will probably have to check it out soon.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Maybe a matinee or something? I think I have a movie ticket running around my room someplace...

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Forgot to ask -- this, uhh, this thing's a sequel, right? So um--do you happen to have a copy of the first one that I could borrow so I can catch up on the series plot before trying to understand what's happening in the second one? :D

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I can definitely bring it by sometime. The first one is awesome and scary and relevant the way the better horror films are. It's not just a zed-word movie.

I will see about getting it to you.