March 1, 2010 How *not* to critique a movie
I don’t know, this guy may be right, and Alice in Wonderland may well be a dreadful movie.
But to say of the 19 year old woman playing Alice:
“The girl’s got all the warmth of a refrigerated trout, and a face you’d expect to see Blu-Tacked to the inside of a London phone box.
“She’s not a heroine – she looks like she’s ON heroin.”
Sorry, it’s just not okay. If she can’t act, discuss that. But shut the fuck up about ‘she looks like she’s on heroin’/’blu-tacked to the inside of a London phone box’. These things act as contemptuous dismissal in and of themselves: it seems to say that if these things were right of COURSE any right-thinking-person would hate her and the movie.
A/ I can’t see why her appearance seems to have pissed this man off so, B/ I don’t like the tone or the implications of the insults themselves, that she’s ‘blu-tacked to the inside of a London phone box’/takes heroin. The most charitable interpretation I can think of for that is that this man feels she’s disgusting and worthy of universal contempt and scorn because she looks like someone who’d be on a ‘missing person’ flyer. I find it a bit astonishing to think that someone would react to the category of ‘missing persons’ with such contempt…it seems to resound with the idea that these ‘losers’ lost themselves or something. Or that she’s worthy of contempt as would be a 19 year old heroin user. Nice attempt at humanity buddy.
ETA – I had suspected at the time of reading it that he was actually referring to sex workers – but I refrained from having a go on that basis as I wasn’t sure, not being familiar with London telephone boxes having never traveled there – but a commenter confirmed my suspicions that that was what he was saying.
So essentially he’s running the oh so hilarious ‘two bit hooker’ line. Oh charming. First this girl is nineteen years old and did nothing more than have a face that doesn’t happen to please your arbitrary personal taste in women (though she was playing Alice so possibly WASN’T their for your cock) so rather than critique the movie you’re running the ‘face like a smack rat/ho’ line. Second: the egregious contempt for sex workers inherent in your ‘joke’ is flat out disgusting. Sex workers are people not ‘things’, sex workers are human not ‘trash’ – your comment seems to indicate that you think that the faces on flyers advertising sexual services belong to women who ought to be treated with contempt, ‘worthless’/’ugly’ women, not worthy of respect and I have no tolerance for that attitude, it’s vile, it’s misogynistic and it is dangerous. This arsehole should be fired. Preferably from a canon into the same ‘black hole’ he suggests the movie should be hurtled into.
- 7 comments
- Posted under Uncategorized
Fuck Politeness 
Permalink #
MissPrism
said
He’s being even shittier than you think. The “London phone box” thing is a reference to business cards and fliers for prostitutes.
Permalink #
fuckpoliteness
said
That did occur to me. I kind of refused to go there that early in the morning. I mean a/ she’s NINETEEN and didn’t do anything to you back the fuck off….but b/ the disrespect to both to *her* that was *intended* by the remark (since clearly this man thinks that ‘hookers’ are completely worthless human beings, and b/ the utter disrespect to the humanity of sex workers that is inherent in the remark and the attitudes that drive it, is infuriating.
Permalink #
Erin
said
It is infuriating, though no doubt being such an utter prat is in his mind = “telling it like it is” or “being edgy” or somesuch. How incredibly unique, you’re an arsehole. *yawn*
It might very well be a terrible film, and if he absolutely must, he can reserve his critique for the director, as he’s the one responsible for the art direction that resulted in Collin’s absurd and offensive over-reaction to a movie he didn’t visually appreciate.
“Sex workers are PEOPLE not ‘things’, sex workers are HUMAN not ‘trash’”
It’s a shame that so many people could fail to grasp such a relatively simple concept 😦
Permalink #
Rachel
said
D’you know, before clicking on the link, I assumed this guy was an English blogger – who’d publish that crap, I thought.
….
Never overestimate News Of The World, people! This is what I’ve learned today.
Great takedown, FP.
Permalink #
The Black Cat
said
I’ve read a few articles “critiquing” Waiskowska for not being “warm” or “charismatic”, both in the film and in interviews. She was cast as the lead in a Tim Burton film, people, are you expecting Miley fucking Cyrus?
Permalink #
attack_laurel
said
Alice as a character is not warm or inviting, so they’re wrong on that from the start – she’s a stranger in a strange land who is the epitome of Victorian proper behaviour, in that she’s judgemental and cross for a lot of the book.
But that aside, it’s just another asshole deciding that because the lead doesn’t please him physically, then that’s the whole movie down the tubes, as if all movies were designed purely as masturbation fodder. I mean, really. Who’s the 19 year old here? 😡
Nice Carnival, btw – excellent links!
Permalink #
attack_laurel
said
Oh, and thinking about it more, it’s the fact that the original Alice has a temper that actually saves her – her last act is to shout that she doesn’t believe in them anymore, and thereby destroys the illusion of power.
She’s a powerful character, despite being written as somewhat petulant an judgemental.