Sithel

#“fuck this eardrum in particular”

Who needs eardrums anyway

So, of course I’ve already mentioned, we’ve recently been sketching in Cortona Italy. We were there in June teaching a workshop – which I was actually a little nervous about initially.

This was to be my big first sketching event outside the umbrella of UrbanSketchers.org and I was unsure what it would be like. I was working with a company I’d never partnered with before, and we’d chosen a town I’ve never seen. So there were a lot of questions how the event might go. Of course I need not have been concerned.

The best thing about these workshops is the people. Anyone willing to drag themselves halfway around the world to go sketching is someone worth knowing! From the first day, our little group was exploring Cortona, drawing together like old friends.

By the end of the week, we’d been doing a lot of pen and ink sketching, and I was raring to get in a for-real painting. People were interested in seeing a big demo, so we set up at the lookout point in Piazza Garibaldi and I did this 9×24″ panorama.

I was – again – a little nervous going in. I’d been drawing all week, and felt a bit rusty with the brushwork. Plus, I was a bit concerned about tackling this incredibly complex view. Not that I was going to back down once I’d set up the easel. You just stick to your game plan – do the things you are always telling people – “simplify, see the big shapes, draw with dry edges, let water play inside, come back when dry to re-enforce darks”. And miraculously – one of my favorite paintings of the trip just appeared before our eyes – like watching someone else paint it.

We know you weren’t worried, but there’s gonna be plenty of Jennifer Lawrence to enjoy after you see Mockingjay Part 2. She’s re-teamed with her American Hustle director, David O. Russell, and her Silver Linings Playbook co-star, Bradley Cooper in the film, Joy, which is set for release on Christmas. Check out the new trailer above!

Here’s the official synopsis:

JOY is the wild story of a family across four generations centered on the girl who becomes the woman who founds a business dynasty and becomes a matriarch in her own right. Betrayal, treachery, the loss of innocence and the scars of love, pave the road in this intense emotional and human comedy about becoming a true boss of family and enterprise facing a world of unforgiving commerce. Allies become adversaries and adversaries become allies, both inside and outside the family, as Joy’s inner life and fierce imagination carry her through the storm she faces.

I’ve gotta say, this film looks badass, and I’m thrilled to see JLaw take on yet another meaty, nuanced role. And maybe it’s the Christmas release date, but it kinda felt like a wackier, weirder, modern It’s a Wonderful Life with Lawrence as George Bailey.

But what really got me was this bit of dialogue from the trailer:

Now you listen to me. I’ll tell you what’s gonna come of you. You are gonna grow up, and be a strong, smart young woman. Go to school, meet a fine young man, have beautiful children of your own, and you’re gonna build wonderful things. And that is what’s gonna happen to you.

So wait, it’s not either or? I can fall in love and meet a fine young man and have kids and be strong and smart and build things? Sign me up!

What do you all think of the Joy trailer?

(via JoBlo)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

It has always amused me that despite being a species with only two options, we get so excited to learn that the next member of it will be one or another. But there I was blubbering like I had never heard news so unusual and wonderful when they told me it was a girl, because like my favorite childhood movie that we dusted off a couple rainy weekends ago, we’ve never had a little girl. We hope she’s going to like it here.

... Read the rest of look what else we baked! on smittenkitchen.com

---

© smitten kitchen 2006-2012. | permalink to look what else we baked! | 1294 comments to date | see more: Announcements

まるさん、また猫草が育ちました。
Hey Maru, I grew cat grass for you again.



まる：「グッジョブ！」
Maru:[Thank you, good job!]


はなさんもどうぞ。
Hey Hana!


はな：「いただきまーす！」
Hana:[Yes, please!]


まるは数本まとめて食べたい派、
はなは一本ずつちょーだい派。
でもはなは、まるほど猫草が好きではない様子。

Julie Taymor working with David Fincher on a FIGHT CLUB rock opera? You didn’t hear it from me. :) #SDCC

— Chuck Palahniuk (@chuckpalahniuk) July 12, 2015

Okay. A small part of me would love to see a musical adaptation of “His Name is Robert Paulson,” or “I Wanted to Destroy Something Beautiful.” So maybe this Fight Club rock opera–teased by Chuck Palahniuk at the Dark Horse panel for the Fight Club 2 comic–is something to look forward to.

It’ll be directed/produced by Julie Taymor (Across the Universe, Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark, The Lion King) and David Fincher (you know, the guy who directed the movie?). Rumored to also be assisting is Trent Reznor, who’ll work on music.

Honestly? I keep going back and forth on this. It could be great. It could be terrible. It could introduce a whole swath of die-hard Fight Club fans to musical theater.

… on second thought, this is going to be glorious.

(via Indiewire)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

 

Thanks for the info, Jeremy! I really appreciate that you wrote to me instead of just emailing a link to the story. I wonder if anyone has collected mail from every zip code. 42,000 is a lot of pieces of mail. And maybe one day, maybe when we hit 10,000 members, we'll have a party or a retreat or something. We do think about these things!

Recently my company started using Python, and being the sort of forward-looking people we are, we started using Python 3. Now, I've used Python in the past, but haven't built anything abiding in it: this means I spend a lot of time Googling around for things I need to know.

Naturally, nearly every search requires me to include the term Python. But Python has been stuck in version 2 for years, and only recently has overcome the inertia to really move the community towards 3. This means the vast majority of searches return results for 2, unless you modify the above term to Python 3.

Google implicitly assumes f('Python') -> g('Python 2') for most search terms. Obviously there is some traffic that will point to version 3 information, but for the most part it's pointed towards 2 by dint of the fact that 2 has been the de facto version for years. Yet the last 2 version, 2.7 will sunset by 2020. That means, effectively, the search engine is looking backwards and not forwards.

We see this sort of thing in politics and business all the time: well, this is the way it's always been done so even though it's going to change imminently we will be lacksidaisacal about embracing that change.

Should that attitude be equally applied to search engines? I'm asserting that it is trivial for Google to simply subsitute Python 3 for Python, thereby promoting the modern version of the language. To not do so increases the stickiness of a soon-to-be dead modality. How many people are learning things now that will soon not apply?

There are some obvious objections. Python 2 users in large code bases are unlikely to upgrade for the sake of it. They still need access to information - this would make it harder on them, arguably harder than it would make easier on would-be users of 3.

Should Google even take a stance on what is the 'correct' or 'more progressive' version? They take stances on things they think are cooler than other things all the time, and sometimes for very progressive reasons. Technology version level is really the least arbitrary of reasons: why not promote the latest the community has backed? And would a specific request from the community change the ethics of that situation? (i.e., it's not Google promoting 3, it's that the people who care the most are asking for 3 to be promoted.)

I don't really know the answers to this. I want 3 to be promoted above 2 because I use it, and because the 2 stuff is all, essentially, garbage or soon-to-be garbage (unless you're a cyberarcheologist or a necromancer). But there is a broader question there, having to do with search, and the fact that what is, now, the 'most relevant' borders on navel-gazing. When we know, for certain, things are about to change, should we not make sure our automated tools are also looking forward, rather than at the ground?

(This post written in honor of Sithel's last day of having to wrestle with Python. For a while, at least. So long and thanks for all the tunes!)

According to The Hollywood Reporter, The Happytime Murders, Brian Henson’s long-awaited film about a world where humans and puppets co-exist, is finally being developed by STX Entertainment and the Jim Henson Company.

The puppet noir follows an alcoholic LAPD detective and his human partner as they investigate the murders of former stars of a 1980’s children’s show. According to THR, the film will be “Avenue Q meets L.A. Confidential.”

Thoughts?

(via Blastr)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Actor and writer Dylan Marron (the voice of Welcome to Night Vale‘s Carlos) is the founder of Every Single Word, a Tumblr featuring mainstream films edited down to just the speaking roles for people of color.

Take Her, for example:

Or The Fault In Our Stars, which Marron edited down into a 41-second cut:

Noah Baumbach’s Francis Ha stood out from most Hollywood fare with its celebration of female friendships, but its speaking roles for people of color can be condensed into 30 seconds:

Speaking to Buzzfeed, Marron explained that he hopes his edits will speak for themselves:

I present these cuts without comment and without embellishment. As the volume of videos keeps getting bigger, a pattern will emerge. When you lay out patterns in front of people, they speak much louder than any megaphone rant.

To see more glaring evidence of Hollywood’s dire need for better representation and more diverse creators, head over to Buzzfeed or Every Single Word.

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Magic Mike XXL is not as good as Magic Mike, and it is so, so much better for it. If the first film was marked by anything it was cognitive dissonance—a somber tone and a bummer of a plot about the saddest stripper in Florida. He’s got a dream, see, but getting a loan is hard, because the economy. Magic Mike was a contemplative meditation on economic disenfranchisement and following one’s passions, sprinkled by be-strobe-lighted scenes of gyrating abs in fabulously garish fireman costumes. It ended up in the vein of a thinking man’s Showgirls—far from a joke or a failure, but perhaps too self-serious for its own good.

Magic Mike XXL, on the other hand, is a literal lapdance of a movie. It basically handwaves away all of the bad juju that went down in the first, looks at its titular character and says, “No one cares about your stupid furniture business, Mike.” Magic Mike nods in agreement, gives you a lopsided smile and starts humping the table. The audience squeals in delight. Fucking finally.

If Magic Mike XXL can be said to have a structure at all, it is as delicate and weak as a hummingbird skeleton. It’s a road trip movie about a group of dudes finding themselves by gyrating on a wide variety of titillated ladies. The Kings of Tampa are like the sex fairies, flitting from town to town, finding purpose in granting the gift of man candy to the women they come across. Each scene is a gratuitous joy that skirts the borders of meaninglessness. There are stars in my eyes, and I am bow-legged from the experience.

Joe Manganiello exposits an ecstasy-fueled dream about a wedding-based striptease routine that later culminates in perhaps the most fabulous BDSM-related scene in the history of moving images. The absolutely transfixing Jada Pinkett-Smith runs a stripper ranch for women, and most of the patrons are women of color. She calls her customers “queens,” they love her for it, and so do we, the likewise squealing audience. Plus size women get extensive scenes of being thrilled at their male entertainers catering to their desires, and it’s never played as a joke. At one point a stripper named Malik actually picks up a woman who is probably in the 300-pound range and carries her like a bride over a threshold. She is so goddamn happy, and he is proud to be of service.

Mike, despite just having gone through what looks like a bitter breakup, never shows one whiff of resentment towards women. He’s trying to find himself, bro, but he sure as hell doesn’t need to tear down women to do it. Andi MacDowell, looking fabulous, plays a drunken, undersexed Southern mom who, rather than being shamed or turned into a joke, finally gets some love in the form of Joe Manganiello’s “Big Dick Richie.” This is the first movie I’ve ever seen where it’s admitted that, yes, a big dick can be a problem (it hurts sometimes, okay?). Who’s the “glass slipper to Big Dick Richie’s uncomfortably huge dick but fabulous fucking Andi MacDowell? Yes.

Amber Heard’s character eats an entire red velvet cake while her friend’s middle-aged moms are being told how beautiful they are by the perfect-bodied “Male Entertainers” in the next room over. She and Magic Mike discuss God and the merits of cookies vs. cake, and Mike tells her “yes, my God is a She” before twirling out of the room. She’s a character that feels like she might have served some sort of narrative purpose in an earlier draft, and they forgot to write her out because they’d already cast the part. I don’t care, because “God is a She” and then he twirled for her. For her. Not because he expected anything from her in return, though. Magic Mike don’t play like that.

Mike’s not ready for a relationship yet, or even ready to try for one, but you know what? That’s not the point. They make a connection anyway, one that culminates with him humping her face on stage in front of hundreds of screaming lady while he high fives his co-dancer, Malik, and what a life-affirming fucking high five it is.

We are all Amber Heard in a delightful man-sandwich. The movie is the red velvet cake. I am crying with happiness and make a tear for the nearest Shake Shack the very second the movie is over.

We are all Queens, and we deserve some goddamn red velvet cake.

In what’s probably the most thoughtful scene in the movie that doesn’t involve stripping, Donald Glover’s character, Andre, explained that he initially got into the male stripping game out of financial need, and thought he’d hate it. But then he came to appreciate the value in titillating women for a living—using his specific talents to make them feel beautiful. Childish Gambino has found a way to marry his passion for music to his work as a male sex object, and his customers adore him for it. He adores his customers. Everyone’s just so fucking happy with their life decisions. Andre can do it, boys—now you can, too.

The movie ends on with the Kings of Tampa staring over the ocean at some fireworks. Rather, it ends with them staring at a PA waving a cookie over some lights because they didn’t have the budget for actual fireworks. It’s unclear as to whether or not they actually win the Stripper Convention. Was this really their last hurrah? Is Mike going back to his struggling furniture business? Who cares? The ladies love them, and that makes them feel good for the time being. No one cares about your furniture business, Magic Mike. But do you hear that? The opening beat to “Pony” just dropped. You know what to do.

Being in the business of titillating women is ultimately beneath them. In Magic Mike XXL, women’s pleasure is put front and center. Other critics have put forth the idea that there’s ultimately no point to this shallow romp through banana hammock Disneyland, but I disagree—it’s about reconciling the cognitive dissonance of the first one, and that, yes, a man can take some pride in acting out women’s fantasies for a modest shower of dollar bills. In that regard, Magic Mike XXL is the more mature of the two—one need not be ashamed of their stripper identity. It doesn’t always have to be either/or—it can be both.

Lindsay vlogs on various topics nerdy and nostalgic on YouTube, co-hosts irreverent book show “Booze Your Own Adventure,” and is co-founder ofChezApocalypse.com. If you don’t mind your timeline flooded with tweets about old cartoons, dog pictures and Michael Bay, you can follow her on Twitter.

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

WWF Rage Pager. 1999 ad. @TheRock pic.twitter.com/SrDxLP8mT1

— WWF Magazine Archive (@WWFMagArchive) June 23, 2015

Presented without further comment, because The Rock is perfect unto himself and does not need our petty explanations.

Instead, let’s let the man himself explain how we feel about this through interpretive dance:

(via Uproxx)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Apple’s Steve Jobs was a pretty huge public presence for the company, so the heavy (over?) dramatization of his life in his Aaron Sorkin/Danny Boyle biopic was fairly inevitable—and this trailer certainly meets those expectations.

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

which is never a good sign…  

Everyone knows that unicorns poop rainbows – but did you know that dragons poo diamonds?   It makes perfectly logical sense if you think about it.                                                                                                -If memory serves correctly, diamonds are created by immense heat combined with pressure upon carbon. – We all know that dragons breathe fire, therefore it’s logical that it’s pretty damned hot inside a dragon. – Dragons eat people. I think it’s fair to say that most people would give me indigestion, especially the kinds of sweaty knights and unwashed peasantry that form the average dragon’s diet (see note #1). Indigestion creates pressure in the guts. – Anyone who’s ever watched Star Trek knows that humans are a carbon based lifeform. Therefore. Heat(dragon breath)+ pressure(killer indigestion)+ carbon(based lifeform)= diamond turds It’s just physics, innit? Aha! I hear you cry! But if dragons excrete diamonds why did medeival types go to such great lengths to hunt them down? Well, anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the history of personal adornment will tell you that diamonds were not much valued until the rennaisance due to human lack of the correct technology to facet them – rough diamonds are just that (see note #2). In fact as I type Godric the pioneering dragon farmer is merrily spinning in his grave because when he declared backruptcy in 657ad (due to the exorbitant price of public liability insurance for dragon farmers and the complete lack of sales of his avant garde dragon turd jewelery range), everyone in the pub said, “Honestly, Godric, what did you think was going to happen? It’s not like the Queen of England is ever going to wear dragon turd earrings, now, is it?” #1 Yes, I know it’s commonly held knowledge that dragons prefer to eat virgins, but why do you think this is? It’s becuase they don’t make indigestion pills for dragons, so the dragons (very sensibly, I might add) try to regulate thier diet by eating nice bland virgins. Obviously it’s far easier to find a dragon than it is to find a virgin, so the poor dragons have no choice but to eat sweaty knights (suits of armour do not have internal air conditioning systems) and assorted unwashed peasants, thus ending up with terrible indigestion. This, by the way, explains why dragons are so grumpy, becuase who wouldn’t be? Mmmmm, virgin, tastes like chicken… #2. You didn’t think dragons could poo faceted diamonds, did you? Because, and I quote the great Tiamat, “OW!OW! OW! OWIE!!!! OOOOH ME JACKSIE THE PAIN!!!! OOOOOWWW!” In completely unrelated news I would very much like a pet dragon. I have an endless supply of chavs it can eat, and I promise to clear up after it when it gets diahorrea. (btw, original writing by me, not some meme gacked from the internet, so please don’t reproduce without permission) (And yes, I know this is my sewing blog, and I usually post my ramblings elsewhere, but you all seem to like dragons so I thought I’d post this here as well. I promise sewing tomorrow, honest)

In this video for Son Lux’s “You Don’t Know Me,” our goddess Tatiana Maslany channels a bit of her clone power. A little Alison, a little Helena. A lot of Tatiana Maslany.

(via Vulture)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

After being asked by Yahoo Movies to comment on their decision to gender-swap Jurassic World action figures like Blue the raptor, Indominus Rex, and the T-Rex, Hasbro has promised to rectify the error in toy descriptions. According to Yahoo,

[A spokesperson] said the switch “was an oversight” and that Hasbro is “in the process of updating the language with the correct information.

Kudos to Hasbro for seeing validity in fans’ concerns and taking a step (however minute) to increase representation in toys—now if retailers can just avoid putting Jurassic World merchandise in the “boys'” section, we’d be in raptor-business.

(via HitFix)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Cut Video’s fantastic hair and makeup series explores Russia’s history with the help of model Anya Zaytseva. For more of “100 Years of Beauty,” check out Cut Video’s look at the fashions of Mexico, North and South Korea, India, and the Philippines.

(via Laughing Squid)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

some wishful thinking

[ print ]

I’m not surprised that Hasbro is misgendering Jurassic World‘s dinos–just disappointed. Sexism, uh, finds a way.

Here, from Hasbro’s website, is the toy description for the “Blue” velociraptor figurine:

Clever as ever, Jurassic World’s velociraptors are masterful hunters. And this awesome figure looks just like Velociraptor “Blue”! He’s ready to team up with his fellow Velociraptors (other figures sold separately) to hunt the ultimate predator! His slashing claws and growling attack will destroy anything in his way. Let the hunt begin with your Velociraptor “Blue” figure!

Clever as ever what, though? To quote io9, it’s not “clever bro.”

Hasbro’s Pachycephalosaurus, Ankylosaurus, T-Rex and other dino figurines are also all referred to as “he.”

Given the ongoing erasure of female characters in nearly all merchandise based off major franchises, it’s unsurprising that Hasbro has followed suit by gender-swapping Jurassic World‘s dinos; especially since “attacking,” “growling,” “destroying,” and being the “ultimate predator” are unfortunately seen as traditionally masculine traits. Canon be damned, there are toys to sell and toxic gender biases to perpetuate!

On the plus side, I doubt Hasbro’s fear of representing female fans will actually hinder any little kids out there looking for an Indominus Rex of their own; unlike Black Widow fans, Jurassic World’s audience has the opportunity to ignore merchandisers’ pathetic fear of femininity and get their raptor on regardless.

If anything, Hasbro’s stubborn misgendering is just an indication of how far we really are from girls inheriting the toys they deserve. ‘Cause Isla Nublar is a matriarchy, y’all, whether advertisers want to admit it or not. Hahahrawrrahaha.

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Not to be confused with the other source of Fury Road‘s badassery, Charlize Theron/Furiosa, but this concept art for George Miller’s hit sequel by Peter Pound gives a window into where the look of the film began. It’s all about as awesomely over-the-top as you’d expect and demonstrates what did and didn’t change in the transition from concept to masterpiece on film.

Take a look at some of the art from the movie that Pound has posted to his website and enjoy it in all of its shiny and chrome glory:

(via Geek Tyrant, images via Peter Pound)

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

housebuiltfortwo:

17. This quaint cabin was built with a unique combination of reclaimed metal and wood. As one of the cabin rentals at Blue Moon Rising, an ecotourist retreat in Garrett County, Maryland, Kaya offers a beautiful and cozy spot for a getaway. Nestled among the pines, the cabin is close to the community fire pit.

© Blue Moon Rising

I don’t recall exactly when “is this feminist?” became the question equivalent to a paper cut to me. I would get questions like, “Can you give examples of feminist characters?” or “Is this a feminist film?” and they always made my eyes cross because I didn’t even begin to know how to answer them — which version of feminist theory are you even referring to, O hypothetical question-asker? You do realize that they are many, and they are varied, right? That we don’t get a monthly pamphlet with convenient bullet points outlining the current talking points? Moreover, how could one cut up and string out every aspect of a piece of media and confidently assert that, “Yes, all aspects of this thing align with every single facet of the brand of feminism that I ascribe to.” “Is this feminist?” was a shortcut question, and there was no way for me to answer it honestly.

But around about the time Pacific Rim came out, it finally hit me — “Is this feminist?” wasn’t about applying the lens of feminist theory to media studies in an accessible way, people just wanted to feel good about liking non-problematic things. And that is in itself problematic because it sidesteps the whole point of media criticism; it shouldn’t be about making you feel good about liking the “correct” media. It’s about tracing patterns in filmmaking and film language and applying them to their sociological and artistic context. A pat on the back for your fave not being problematic was never part of the deal.

I imagine that most people don’t think too much about where feminist media criticism originated, regardless of how much someone engages with it (or against it) on a day to day basis. outside of fanzines, most feminist media theory existed inside academia and publishing, and most discourse surrounding film theory and criticism occurred in a professional context. Then came the Internet.

Feminist media criticism on the Internet is influenced by an academic framework, but it is far from beholden to it. And as much as I want to pump my fist and hail the power of the people for reclaiming feminism as a grassroots cause, I’m not sure the Internet’s influence on feminist media criticism is a good thing.

Most people, for better or worse, learn about feminist theory through osmosis. Given that we have a theoretical framework that is often misused and misunderstood by the people who appropriate it (I’m looking at you, “Male Gaze”), the discussion on how feminism applies to the media we consume has not only become more diluted, but also far more contentious, and far more controversial. Moya Luckett, media historian and professor at NYU’s Gallatin School, tells me: “Part of the problem with feminist theory and the level of rigor and sophistication it often involves often meant a problematic relationship to a real world context. What I do think is a problem is a lot of this work isn’t understood properly, including by scholars.”

Feminist criticism, or indeed any media criticism, is increasingly perceived as a form of character assassination; ”If you attack my precious Man of Steel, then you are attacking me.” And this attitude isn’t limited to the knee-jerk reactionaries that want to murder critical theory–the social justice side is often more than happy to assign consumers of certain media as somehow lesser-than, that there is good media and bad media, and consumers of the bad kind are bad people. And what the hell good does that do?

And all the while people seem to have forgotten that feminist theory has always been fluid, and it’s always been changing. It didn’t spring forth from the womb of the Earth, fully formed; it is a work in progress, always has been, and always will be. Lisa Wade, professor of sociology and principal author of Sociological Images, tells me: “We’re not going to control the message about what feminism is, and we don’t want to do that. Feminism has always been a conversation, and it has always been contentious, and we need to keep in mind that we need plural feminism, and we need a conversation, so the idea that we should silence some people is the wrong way to go.”

As the conversation over feminist media criticism grows more contentious, I’ve seen high-profile academics dismiss dissenting opinions wholesale on the basis of a perceived relative lack of education. The emotionality of discourse over media criticism has lead to an increase in ad hominem tactics, as well — rather than, “I disagree with this assessment”; now you’re just as likely to hear, “You’re not a feminist” or “You’re a bad person.” It’s an easy way to dismiss someone, presenting an uncompromising false dichotomy, but, hey, you can’t say it isn’t an effective means of silencing discourse.

“We’re far more interested in being right than in learning anything,” says Wade. “Looking at anything from many points of view at the same time is really threatening to us, because it suggests that there’s no right answer.”

Media, especially fiction, is meant to engage you on an emotional level, and personal investment in the media they love is often people’s entryway into the world of feminist theory. If people are emotionally invested in a thing, they want to know that it has some wider meaning than simply being a corporate-generated distraction. People want to believe that their favorite movie or video game or book or whatever has a place in the greater narrative that is social progress. Not just “I like this thing,” but “I like this thing and here is how it is improving the media landscape.”

The problem here is the inevitable desire to shape that narrative, and I see an increasing trend for people trying to shape feminist theory to justify the media they like, and not the other way around.

Personal enjoyment and critical readings can and should exist mutually exclusive of each other. I understand the desire to be a good person, and the desire to think that you like the right things for the right reasons, but that’s not the point. It was never the point.

It’s hard to divorce personal feelings from the media you love. I get that, especially when personal feelings are what interest most people in media criticism in the first place. And perhaps that is a vital and necessary component to the future of media criticism. “Sometimes you need to invite someone into feminist theory in a way that’s non-threatening,” says Wade. “Maybe it’s not as radical as some people prefer, but it’s a start.”

Maybe you are emotional about readings of your media, because you want to see progress in a certain direction, and that’s fine. But when critical theory becomes weaponized as a means of categorizing and silencing people who enjoy a piece of media, parsed into “bad people like this thing” and “good people like this thing,” how does this further the discussion of the piece of media in question? You got someone to shut up by calling them a bad person. Awesome. What does that have to do with the debate? Ah, right. Fuck all.

Don’t ask “is this feminist?” as a means of giving yourself permission to like something. Media is designed to elicit an emotional response. You are not a bad person for having an emotional response to problematic media; you are not being attacked if someone examines the racial politics of your favorite movie. Media criticism is not about you.

Nothing is exempt from critique. You don’t get a gold star for liking the “right” things, and for the love of Christ stop trying to qualify your enjoyment of a thing by whether or not it’s feminist enough. Go, go, and love what thou wilt.

Lindsay vlogs on various topics nerdy and nostalgic on YouTube, co-hosts irreverent book show “Booze Your Own Adventure,” and is co-founder of ChezApocalypse.com. If you don’t mind your timeline flooded with tweets about old cartoons, dog pictures and Michael Bay, you can follow her on Twitter.

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

 

Remember a few weeks ago, when there was much debate as to whether or not Jurassic World was sexist? And if releasing a certain clip had simply been a miscalculation on the studio? Was that scene nothing more than screwball banter that was misconstrued outside of the larger context of the film? Well, the movie’s out and, unfortunately, it seems the scene isn’t what we were promised by the film’s director – and the movie does feel sexist. A lot more sexist than I expected.

Sure, Bryce Dallas Howard’s Claire occasionally gets a few scenes when she gets to kick a little ass; but it is almost always her mirroring Pratt’s character. Plus, those scenes of Howard are often punctuated with the “It’s a girl” wow moment, which is just annoying – like when she’s running in the dark in front of a T-Rex and we’re treated to a close-up of her stiletto heels. But that’s only at the end of the film; for the majority of Jurassic World, Claire is a punchline for the macho guys’ jokes, or the character who represents what’s really wrong with this park. Just like the animals hatched in a lab, with no family to provide them roots, she has forgotten her family for work, and chosen career over motherhood.

These parallels that movie makes with Claire’s personality and her lack of motherly instincts are why I had a big problem with the film. After initially being introduced to Hollywood’s most recent quintessential mom actress, Judy Greer (who deserves so much better than these bit parts), we meet her opposite: Claire. Greer is clearly presented as Howard’s “good sister,” sending her two children off to spend time with that screw-up, Claire. “Screwed up” because, hold on to your hats, people… she is putting her job ahead of family.

From what we see, this woman, with an entire park to run, has multiple responsibilities across multiple divisions, and gets very little assistance; but has still agreed to take these children as a favor for her sister during a divorce. I would tend to agree that if you commit to watching your sister’s kids, you should put the phone down; but it also seems like this weekend was pushed on her, rather than worked out with her schedule, and frankly Claire is dealing with this forced obligation as best she can. Nonetheless, Claire is presented very early on as a bad person of questionable morality because she has asked her assistant to watch the boys while she goes to work. I certainly didn’t share Chris Pratt’s look of shock and disgust when she makes the horrific reveal that she doesn’t know her own nephews’ ages! I couldn’t pass that test either, and I know a lot of good, sweet parents who have to reminded of their own children’s ages (and call each other by their sibling’s names from time to time).

Not being close to your nephews isn’t some kind of proof that you lack maternal instincts, the way this film suggests. Beyond that, Claire not having children, and declaring she doesn’t want children, also isn’t some sort of fatal personality flaw. But Jurassic World clearly sees it this way, believing the natural progression of women has them evolving into mothers, and those who don’t have that desire are somehow deficient of humanity. Despite claims to the contrary, motherhood does not equal inherent goodness, and not wanting to be a mother does not equal an inherent lack thereof for women. What about the many women who are unable to have children? Most importantly to the film – and this is where Jurassic World is really offensive – women who choose to put their careers first and/or foremost are not doing it as a coping mechanism for what is “really” lacking in their lives. I’m sure some are (as are many men), but many have a passion for their work which they want to put front and center, and that doesn’t make them less of a woman, or less a part of the world around her.

Unfortunately, we don’t see that kind of passion for her work, or even much of a personal life, for Claire the way we did in the other Jurassic films. We certainly saw passion for work from Ellie (Laura Dern) in the first film, and Sarah (Julianne Moore) in the second (and yes, even Tea Leoni’s underwritten character in Jurassic Park III is better developed than Claire). These weren’t women missing some fundamental part of their personality until they had children of their own, and they weren’t using their accomplishments to hide their feminine personalities. Ellie allowed herself to be vulnerable, while saving the day and voicing her opinions in a room full of guys, and while she was often the voice of reason on the island, she didn’t feel the need to berate. Claire often does seem to be using her power as a defense; but considering the number of men who work for her and still treat her with macho-disrespect, one can understand that. Top of that list is Pratt’s character, who speaks to Claire in a way that would get most men fired for sexual harassment.

If you somehow made it through all three films before Jurassic World, you know Ellie’s fate was to have children (though not with Sam Neil’s character, Grant, with whom she stays friends), leaves her work behind, and becomes stay at home mom – which isn’t some kind of betrayal of her character, either, because it is so clearly presented in Jurassic Park III as Ellie’s choice. And Ellie ultimately confirmed that Grant’s choice not to have children (a topic from the first film) was his choice, a choice he had the right to make and which no one suggests is a bigger flaw that he has to “solve.” And that is what is so different here, in the fourth and, ultimately, most sexist film in the franchise. While Ellie and Grant were “discussing” whether children would be a part of their future as an option, Claire is being told she want kids, that there is something wrong with her for not feeling that way herself.

Claire’s own sister tells her “one day she’ll settle down,” as if the life she has built is temporary, which might be the clearest piece of evidence that this movie was written by four men. I don’t know any sisters who are supposedly close (and at their age) who would say something that heartless, cruel, and thoughtless to her sibling, and I didn’t believe for a second that Howard’s Claire wouldn’t have taken offense and responded to her as being out of line. She doesn’t, and they don’t, because the filmmakers clearly believe this is her necessary evolution: to find her maternal side. As Marlow Stern wrote in his rather accurate review for The Daily Beast, the only character development we get in this movies is “a woman’s ‘evolution’ from an icy-cold, selfish corporate shill into a considerate wife and mother.” As if to say, don’t worry guys, that shrill boss-lady really just wants to find a sexist guy that will teach her how to behave, and awaken that biological clock. Sure, her life’s work is destroyed and hundreds dead… but she got a man who can give her that baby all women really want.

I suppose an entire paper could be written about how Jurassic Park deals with women and motherhood, considering all the dinosaurs are female, but only a man who can “tame” and control them – or that when left to her own devices, without family or man to “imprint on,” they become monsters. But this movie isn’t subtle enough warrant that much analysis.

To see Jill’s interpretation of the film, check out her review here. 

Lesley Coffin is a New York transplant from the midwest. She is the New York-based writer/podcast editor for Filmoria and film contributor at The Interrobang. When not doing that, she’s writing books on classic Hollywood, including Lew Ayres: Hollywood’s Conscientious Objector and her new book Hitchcock’s Stars: Alfred Hitchcock and the Hollywood Studio System.

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

One of my new favorite Tumblrs to follow is Un gif dans ta gueule… (roughly ‘A gif in the mouth…’) run by French photographer and animator Nicolas Monterrat who brings his surreal sense of humor to historical photos, paintings, and other borrowed imagery by creating bizarre and humorous animations. Collected here is just a sampling, do yourself and dive into his archive, you won’t regret it. (via Lustik)

We, of course, know Noelle Stevenson from her hit comic series, Lumberjanes. However, long-time fans of Stevenson’s work know her web comic-turned-graphic novel, Nimona, the futuristic story of a young shapeshifter who teams up with a disgraced knight to overthrow a corrupt regime. Now, in addition to Lumberjanes being adapted into a live-action movie, Nimona is going to be adapted into an animated feature!

Fox Animation will be adapting Nimona, which will be helmed by Patrick Osborne, Oscar Award-winning animated short director, written by Mark Haimes, and produced by Vertigo Entertainment’s Roy Lee and Adam Stone.

As reported by The Hollywood Reporter:

Stevenson wrote and drew Nimona as a web comic while still a student at Maryland Institute College of Art (it was even her thesis). The popularity and acclaim of the comic led to Harvey and Eisner Awards, as well as her being awarded the Slate Cartoonist Studio Prize for best web comic in 2012.

Lest you think that Nimona is an all-dude affair, the project will be overseen by Fox executives Vanessa Morrison and Darlene Caamano Loquet. We’re thrilled by the possibilities, and by all the awesome Stevenson action coming to our screens!

—Please make note of The Mary Sue’s general comment policy.—

Do you follow The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?