I've had problems with this video since it was released. In fact, this video made up most of the reason for my not buying Suzie's latest album or even seeking out her other singles. Now that I've got Dear Love on repeat, and it's full of genuinely great and eloquent pop songs, I have to revisit this video.
Possible trigger warning for mistreatment of mental illness.
I guess the problem is that I can't assume the problematic elements are present as a form of satire or social commentary. It doesn't appear that way. A woman who expresses her emotions physically is sent to "Drama Queen Rehab" by her über-rational male partner, where she is manhandled by male orderlies and labeled by a male doctor while surrounded by female patients. Is this a purposeful commentary on the treatment of emotional women?
The sexism is only part one. Part two is the fact that said "Rehab" is actually a psychiatric institution - AND the symptoms described in the song sound suspiciously similar to Borderline Personality Disorder. As a person diagnosed with BPD who has spent time in a psychiatric institution, this video feels like a mockery of my life experiences. (For one thing, the behaviours as described in the song would NEVER be enough to land one in the psych ward.) Either the singer is simply emotionally volatile and appropriating/making light of aspects of life with a mental illness, or she does indeed have/have potential for a diagnosis, in which case... what? The video is a coping mechanism? Coping mechanisms are great and valid as long as they don't hurt other people. I can't say all my peers would agree with me, but I find it insensitive and even (dare I say it?) triggering.
I don't really know who would have signed off on this concept as a good idea. I feel that it encourages the stigma attached to mental illness, especially women with Borderline Personality Disorder, even if that isn't the first thought on every viewer's mind. It reaffirms the idea that dramatic women have something wrong with them, them personally, and the people around them are the victims. Can't we discard this notion? Even therapy for BPD does not tell you to "stop being dramatic."
I actually like listening to the song, as long as I can dissociate it from the disturbing messages of the video, and I like the parts of the video where Suzie is dolled up and smiling, seemingly owning her dramatic tendencies. That's what I like to see! Not marginalization. Not mistreatment. Owning up and using your knowledge of yourself to learn to interpret your emotions effectively.
Can we have more of that, please?
November 23, 2012
June 23, 2012
Feelings on Rock of Ages
I am a person who saw Rock of Ages (the musical) four or five times from the front row; not because I was absolutely in love with it, but because it was in town and had a lottery and starred Canadian theatre actors. For this I went into the movie with mild trepidation and slight hysteria. I never had a rock-solid bond to the show in its purest form, but I do have a fondness for its campiness. Thus, a lot of feelings.
- For the most part, I was apathetic about the movie. I bopped my head to the tunes but I did not care about most of the plot or characters. In the musical I do care, but I'm not sure whether to blame that on direction or sheer proximity or live vs. filmed.
- Tom Cruise was the absolute best part. He should always play slightly-crazy, in all seriousness, with his best interests at heart: play crazy, sir.
- Diego Boneta could be Yvan Pedneault's twin, to the extent that it's absurd. I kept expecting him to speak (and sing) with an accent.
- I do not use this word lightly, but I hated the entire subplot with the mayor and his wife. Every single minute of it was useless and unnecessary. It did not add anything to the plot or the movie. It didn't even make sense; she wanted to close The Bourbon because she dated Stacee Jaxx? That is a complete logical fallacy. I actually hope Catherine Zeta Jones loved the musical and wanted to be a part of it so bad that they shoved her in there, because it had no purpose or value.
- That said, the absolute travesty of the film was Hit Me With Your Best Shot. Okay, I mean no offense to CZJ, but when you're expecting neon track suits and campy stage fighting, a bunch of Stepford wives in a church isn't going to cut it. When they removed the developer/protester subplot, they excised some of the most beautiful camp from the film. Really, really not wise.
- In general, they toned down the campiness. Mistake. This show/movie only works with the most extreme and unabashed disregard for dignity and subtlety. The film seemed to want to be in the middle, and that ruined a lot of things that could have been really brilliant.
- Back to things I liked: The entire bus singing with Sherrie in the beginning. That is one of the perfect moments you can only find in a musical.
- Sherrie actually sang in canon!!! This is major. The musical gets her pregnant while Drew is the one to actually sing on stage. Boo. Sherrie wanted to be a singer and she deserves some of the spotlight. Thumbs up on that one.
That's all I can think of. Overall: A disappointment. Some true bright spots, but on the whole forgettable. Too bad.
- For the most part, I was apathetic about the movie. I bopped my head to the tunes but I did not care about most of the plot or characters. In the musical I do care, but I'm not sure whether to blame that on direction or sheer proximity or live vs. filmed.
- Tom Cruise was the absolute best part. He should always play slightly-crazy, in all seriousness, with his best interests at heart: play crazy, sir.
- Diego Boneta could be Yvan Pedneault's twin, to the extent that it's absurd. I kept expecting him to speak (and sing) with an accent.
- I do not use this word lightly, but I hated the entire subplot with the mayor and his wife. Every single minute of it was useless and unnecessary. It did not add anything to the plot or the movie. It didn't even make sense; she wanted to close The Bourbon because she dated Stacee Jaxx? That is a complete logical fallacy. I actually hope Catherine Zeta Jones loved the musical and wanted to be a part of it so bad that they shoved her in there, because it had no purpose or value.
- That said, the absolute travesty of the film was Hit Me With Your Best Shot. Okay, I mean no offense to CZJ, but when you're expecting neon track suits and campy stage fighting, a bunch of Stepford wives in a church isn't going to cut it. When they removed the developer/protester subplot, they excised some of the most beautiful camp from the film. Really, really not wise.
- In general, they toned down the campiness. Mistake. This show/movie only works with the most extreme and unabashed disregard for dignity and subtlety. The film seemed to want to be in the middle, and that ruined a lot of things that could have been really brilliant.
- Back to things I liked: The entire bus singing with Sherrie in the beginning. That is one of the perfect moments you can only find in a musical.
- Sherrie actually sang in canon!!! This is major. The musical gets her pregnant while Drew is the one to actually sing on stage. Boo. Sherrie wanted to be a singer and she deserves some of the spotlight. Thumbs up on that one.
That's all I can think of. Overall: A disappointment. Some true bright spots, but on the whole forgettable. Too bad.
February 10, 2012
TV: Republic of Doyle
So I've been on this Republic of Doyle kick, and thinking about Jake and Leslie harder than I should probably think about anything on TV. Spoilers ahead.
November 18, 2011
film: Martha Marcy May Marlene
Hype is a frustrating concept. I went into this movie with no more information than the title, synopsis, and cast. I think that might be the very best way to see a movie. If I'd read reviews, I would have seen the hype, I would have had sky-high expectations. I'd much rather have completely neutral expectations, neither positive nor negative. Yes, sometimes you will be disappointed, but then there are movies like the one I saw today, where you are just blown away, and so glad to have experienced it with a blank canvas of a mind.
The success of this movie largely rests on the shoulders of the lead actress, Elizabeth Olsen. If I'd had any concept of the hype, I would have known going in that she is the younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, and that there has been tons of Oscar buzz around her performance. I am supremely thankful that I was oblivious to both those facts. I knew her name, and when she came onscreen, I knew what she looked like. That's it.
This is a quiet movie. It was described as a dramatic thriller and I was hoping for more emphasis on "drama" than "thrills". Really, it's light on either, but what there is has true impact. Horrible things happen so quietly that you can't figure out quite how to react. Olsen's performance is quiet, mostly. Martha's later self is subdued (mostly), which makes the contrast to the first flashback - when she was happy, bubbly - more jarring. Through the flashbacks you see the entirety of the descent to her present state of near-catatonic PTSD. Because the performance is so subtle, it feels like the character is embedded in Olsen's skin. There is next-to-no awareness of Elizabeth Olsen The Actress, because she is Martha Marcy May Marlene.
I'm glad Olsen is getting such rave reviews (as far as I've seen) for this role, because I can't wait to see more from her. She is gorgeous and lovely, but also so compelling and magnetic as an actress, it almost feels like she's right there in the room with you. Yes, I'm a fan. Deal with it.
(I can't help but realize I am only adding to the hype with this post. That is why I call it "frustrating" and not some other less forgiving adjective.)
Synopsis from cinemaclock.com: Martha (Elizabeth Olsen) escapes from a cult in rural New York and tries to reintegrate into a normal life with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson). Lucy brings Martha to her Connecticut vacation home, where she and her husband Adam (Hugh Dancy) are trying to enjoy a few days away from their regular lives in the city. Martha constantly experiences chilling flashbacks and begins to lose her grip on reality. As the days pass and Martha's behavior becomes more and more erratic, it becomes clear that her time away from home may have had far more effects on her than initially believed.
The success of this movie largely rests on the shoulders of the lead actress, Elizabeth Olsen. If I'd had any concept of the hype, I would have known going in that she is the younger sister of Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen, and that there has been tons of Oscar buzz around her performance. I am supremely thankful that I was oblivious to both those facts. I knew her name, and when she came onscreen, I knew what she looked like. That's it.
This is a quiet movie. It was described as a dramatic thriller and I was hoping for more emphasis on "drama" than "thrills". Really, it's light on either, but what there is has true impact. Horrible things happen so quietly that you can't figure out quite how to react. Olsen's performance is quiet, mostly. Martha's later self is subdued (mostly), which makes the contrast to the first flashback - when she was happy, bubbly - more jarring. Through the flashbacks you see the entirety of the descent to her present state of near-catatonic PTSD. Because the performance is so subtle, it feels like the character is embedded in Olsen's skin. There is next-to-no awareness of Elizabeth Olsen The Actress, because she is Martha Marcy May Marlene.
I'm glad Olsen is getting such rave reviews (as far as I've seen) for this role, because I can't wait to see more from her. She is gorgeous and lovely, but also so compelling and magnetic as an actress, it almost feels like she's right there in the room with you. Yes, I'm a fan. Deal with it.
(I can't help but realize I am only adding to the hype with this post. That is why I call it "frustrating" and not some other less forgiving adjective.)
May 27, 2011
Quickie Movie Reviews.
Two recent loves and two recent ...not-loves. Opposite of loves. Disloves.
The Break-Up: Miserable. The impression you get from all the promo materials is accurate: a painfully negative film about dragging out the unpleasant acrimonious end of a relationship. It's horrible enough to go through something like that; why would anyone want to watch a movie about it? The only slightly redeeming feature is the final five minute scene, but absolutely not worth sitting through two hours of it (and I wouldn't have, if it hadn't been on TV).
Paper Man: I picked this movie up on the basis of Ryan Reynolds and Emma Stone in a movie together, and I'm ever so glad I did. Jeff Daniels and Emma Stone play a lonely middle-aged man and a lonely teenage girl, respectively, who discover an unexpected friendship just when each needs it most. Though deeply sad, that sadness has an undeniable beauty. Also starring: Lisa Kudrow and Kieran Culkin.
Group Sex: This film was chosen in the hopes that the potential I could see in the brief synopsis - a man accidentally joins a sex addiction recovery group and discovers a community - would be realized. There are a lot of interesting possibilities there, but unfortunately the film aimed for the lowest of all common denominators, and didn't really accomplish anything of worth. Full disclosure: We did not watch to the end, turning it off when two simultaneous date-rape scenes were played for laughs.
Chloe: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson perform impeccably in this psychological thriller about love and trust. Each character is uniquely sympathetic and flawed, pressing you to feel every shock and emotion as they do. A film that will leave you contemplative and slightly disturbed.
Bonus: The movie is both filmed and set in Toronto.
The Break-Up: Miserable. The impression you get from all the promo materials is accurate: a painfully negative film about dragging out the unpleasant acrimonious end of a relationship. It's horrible enough to go through something like that; why would anyone want to watch a movie about it? The only slightly redeeming feature is the final five minute scene, but absolutely not worth sitting through two hours of it (and I wouldn't have, if it hadn't been on TV).
Paper Man: I picked this movie up on the basis of Ryan Reynolds and Emma Stone in a movie together, and I'm ever so glad I did. Jeff Daniels and Emma Stone play a lonely middle-aged man and a lonely teenage girl, respectively, who discover an unexpected friendship just when each needs it most. Though deeply sad, that sadness has an undeniable beauty. Also starring: Lisa Kudrow and Kieran Culkin.
Group Sex: This film was chosen in the hopes that the potential I could see in the brief synopsis - a man accidentally joins a sex addiction recovery group and discovers a community - would be realized. There are a lot of interesting possibilities there, but unfortunately the film aimed for the lowest of all common denominators, and didn't really accomplish anything of worth. Full disclosure: We did not watch to the end, turning it off when two simultaneous date-rape scenes were played for laughs.
Chloe: Julianne Moore, Amanda Seyfried, and Liam Neeson perform impeccably in this psychological thriller about love and trust. Each character is uniquely sympathetic and flawed, pressing you to feel every shock and emotion as they do. A film that will leave you contemplative and slightly disturbed.
Bonus: The movie is both filmed and set in Toronto.
May 07, 2011
The Tourist!
I can't quite remember why I decided not to see The Tourist when it first came out. I've always been fond of Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, so you'd think I would have been psyched! Actually, I think I was psyched, at first. What turned me off? The cheesy posters? Um, yes, I'm pretty sure that was it. It looked cheesy and I thought it would just disappoint me, so I didn't bother.
A few months ago, there was a trailer for the DVD before some other movie we were watching, and I thought, "Oh! That actually looks quite funny! Okay, now I must give it a shot." I think it was, "You're ravenous." "Do you mean ravishing?" "I do!" that got me. I love a good vocabulary joke.
Johnny Depp looked adorably dorky and bewildered, and I can't lie, I like that in a man. Tonight we rented it, and it was everything I hoped it would be, and more! (This endorsement not paid for etc.)
What surprised me was how classic Hollywood it felt. One of my favourite movies is Charade (1963), a caper film following Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant through a series of misunderstandings and misidentifications, punctuated by silly banter that seems oblivious but strikes your funny bone just right, and life-threats that keep you in suspense until the very end. With its atmospheric (and stunningly gorgeous) score, chase scenes through beautiful European cities, and understated romance, The Tourist was highly reminiscent to me of the style of film that Charade exemplified.
I'm a romance/dork-love junkie, so I definitely could have used more of that end, and I didn't especially like the way they decided to sum up the film, but all in all I think I'll have to add it to my favourites list and my DVD collection. I look forward to watching it again soon.
A few months ago, there was a trailer for the DVD before some other movie we were watching, and I thought, "Oh! That actually looks quite funny! Okay, now I must give it a shot." I think it was, "You're ravenous." "Do you mean ravishing?" "I do!" that got me. I love a good vocabulary joke.
Johnny Depp looked adorably dorky and bewildered, and I can't lie, I like that in a man. Tonight we rented it, and it was everything I hoped it would be, and more! (This endorsement not paid for etc.)
What surprised me was how classic Hollywood it felt. One of my favourite movies is Charade (1963), a caper film following Audrey Hepburn and Cary Grant through a series of misunderstandings and misidentifications, punctuated by silly banter that seems oblivious but strikes your funny bone just right, and life-threats that keep you in suspense until the very end. With its atmospheric (and stunningly gorgeous) score, chase scenes through beautiful European cities, and understated romance, The Tourist was highly reminiscent to me of the style of film that Charade exemplified.
I'm a romance/dork-love junkie, so I definitely could have used more of that end, and I didn't especially like the way they decided to sum up the film, but all in all I think I'll have to add it to my favourites list and my DVD collection. I look forward to watching it again soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)