Four kisses ➝ Four locations
It’s only a dress, it’s not the end of the world. Then why does it feel like it is? Castle I’m married to someone else. And I have no idea where he is, we don’t have any leads. Our wedding is supposed to be magical. It was supposed to be our perfect day and now it’s just falling apart. So we’ll put it back together. And to make it worse the venue and now this. I mean it just feels like all of this is one big sign. Well maybe it is a sign. A sign that ours is a great love story. Cause what’s a great love story without obstacles to overcome? Every fairy tale has them. Terrible trials that only the worthy can transcend but you can’t give up. That’s the deal. We want the happy ending, we can’t give up. And that’s why I wanna marry you.
In the end, these are all stories of a woman who destroys the world by empowering herself. These plots are nightmare-logic reactions to feminism, in which “women’s liberation” only liberates women to destroy life as we know it, and in particular, the lives of men.
You have got to be kidding me.
For starters, all three of the characters Johansson plays in these films are meant to be sympathetic, and only one of them is even a horror movie. In Her, she simply leaves behind a man stuck in arrested development. In Under the Skin, she doesn’t destroy any world — the world destroys her for daring to empower herself, and it is rightfully portrayed as heartbreaking and tragic. And in the upcoming Lucy, her empowerment isn’t meant to be “scary”, it’s just meant to be typical, silly Luc Besson badassery. Hell, take it from the writer/director himself:
“We always present the man as the strongest guy and the woman in back crying that he’s gone,” Besson said. “I want to show the strongness of women and the weakness of men. If suddenly Terminator starts to cry and says he misses his mom, then I’d be interested.” [source]
This kind of braindead, reactionary crap that you get in this Salon article, trying to pass itself off as feminist analysis, is no different than the ridiculous attacks on the blatantly, obviously feminist The Stepford Wives in the 70s by Women’s Libs groups, who decried it as advocating male fantasies of female subjugation while being too ignorant of either genre conventions or narrative to realize that was exactly what it was critiquing.
This kind of stupidity is in much the same vein as the way Kathryn Bigelow’s astonishing, chilling Zero Dark Thirty was attacked by political commentators for “advocating torture” when in fact it is doing no such thing, and is really a haunting meditation on the frightening lengths the US went to in the hunt for Bin Laden, and whether the personal costs for all involved were even worth it — hell, it ends with Jessica Chastain weeping pitifully against a makeshift US flag, with no idea where to go from there. It’s not subtle. But articles such as Salon’s above, or the scattered few other major hit pieces on Under the Skin, for example, contain readings that reveal less about the films than they reveal how completely, pathetically ignorant of film language the majority of idealogues and op-ed writers actually are.
"Did you get my picture?"
"A little busy right now, Steven."