The Crank series [Crank (2006) and Crank High Voltage (2009)] epitomizes the objectification of women as the main character played by Jason Statham is fighting just to survive in a world of hostility. In the newest movie, Crank High Voltage, Statham finds himself in the most unfortunate situation: without a heart. Following the movie's ridiculous plot line, Statham desperately searches for his heart while using a battery pack attached to his body to temporarily keep him alive.
At the start of his journey, Statham inadvertently saves a hooker from a cruel pimp. He takes her by the hand and forces her to walk him to the place where they have his heart. As she points him to what appears to be a stripper bar, Statham immediately abandons her. To her disgust, she yells back but he of course gives no answer. Inside, Statham finds his girlfriend, played by Amy Smart, who he hasn't seen or bother to call for days on the table dancing. He angrily pulls her off, while making sure to knock out her upset pimp in the process.
A few scenes ahead, Statham finds himself needing a "friction boost" to save his battery powered heart. Unable to find his girlfriend, he uses an old lady for electric current by rubbing his body all over her. Startled by this, Statham's girlfriend comes into the scene confused as ever. Ignoring her questions, Statham simply stops using the old lady and starts using his girlfriend. What begins as a public display of "spooning" leads to actual sex in the middle of a public place. While you can't blame the actual character, for desperately trying to stay alive, this movie's director, Mark Neveldine, takes the objectification of women to an almost comical level.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
V for Vendetta
V for Vendetta epitomizes Karl Marx's theory on the corruption of power due to money, which inevitably (in the case of the film, that is) causes the proletarian to rise up in rebellion. Director James McTeigue revolved his film around actor Hugo Weaving's character, V, leader of the rebellion whose goal is to end the corruption by taking physical action against England's leaders. In addition, Natalie Portman plays a woman who although is upset with England's corrupt government, is unaware of how to take action until she meets V.
Despite this movie being in the future, McTeigue uses many historical references throughout the film. As an example, the 1812th overture is played as Parliament is set to explode with an absurd amount of dynamite. This musical piece was written to commemorate Russia's defense against Napoleon's advancing army in 1812. Sympathizing with the common man, the proletarian is rising up in defense just as Russia did to prevent further corrupted control by "Napoleon's force," which in this case is England's Parliament.
In the ending scene, everyone is wearing V's mask and black apparel as their hero, V, is sent with the dynamite towards Parliament. With everyone dressed the same, mankind is viewed in this moment as completely equal with no diversity whatsoever. The proletarian's main goal of rebellion overrides all petty differences in thought and physical appearance that they may have with each other. Karl Marx would have probably seen this movie more than once.
[Blog 7]
Despite this movie being in the future, McTeigue uses many historical references throughout the film. As an example, the 1812th overture is played as Parliament is set to explode with an absurd amount of dynamite. This musical piece was written to commemorate Russia's defense against Napoleon's advancing army in 1812. Sympathizing with the common man, the proletarian is rising up in defense just as Russia did to prevent further corrupted control by "Napoleon's force," which in this case is England's Parliament.
In the ending scene, everyone is wearing V's mask and black apparel as their hero, V, is sent with the dynamite towards Parliament. With everyone dressed the same, mankind is viewed in this moment as completely equal with no diversity whatsoever. The proletarian's main goal of rebellion overrides all petty differences in thought and physical appearance that they may have with each other. Karl Marx would have probably seen this movie more than once.
[Blog 7]
Monday, November 2, 2009
White Privilege
Before I even read these articles, I already knew the positions in which the authors would take. I do agree that whites, including myself, have had it easier than minorities. However, the stances they take in my opinion are obtuse and over the top. Perhaps I am approaching this too blatantly, but if our class was assigned readings with opinions on both ends of the spectrum, my conclusions on the matter would be less arbitrarily decided. Seeing refreshing new viewpoints, whether it be from the college student from UT that Robert Jensen argues with, or someone with more prestige, gives us an abundance of intellectual resources in which we can compare and find the best solutions to our social problems.
As I have already stated, I admit there is an unearned white privilege. Many of the white advantages Peggy McIntosh and Robert Jensen list are true. Yet, what I don't understand is why the solution has to come in the form of affirmative action and criticism of SAT scores. Affirmative action promotes racism because it IS being discriminate; forcing people to see that blacks are "weaker" than whites so they must be compensated just like the elderly is compensated with Medicare. Interested by Jensen's comment that the SAT is still written for whites, I dug up some articles online. I found that in the 2009 scores, Asians have outscored the Whites in the Writing Section, which ironically has been stereotyped as their weakness. While many Asian families endorse rigorous study habits in their children, I think it is safe to say that it is possible to do well on the SAT with the proper study habits regardless of color. Thus, it is important to take preparation and education quality into consideration when looking at the test's average, which applies to every ethnicity. Eliminating racism is not an easy task, but we must be sure not to inadvertently promote it in the process.
As I have already stated, I admit there is an unearned white privilege. Many of the white advantages Peggy McIntosh and Robert Jensen list are true. Yet, what I don't understand is why the solution has to come in the form of affirmative action and criticism of SAT scores. Affirmative action promotes racism because it IS being discriminate; forcing people to see that blacks are "weaker" than whites so they must be compensated just like the elderly is compensated with Medicare. Interested by Jensen's comment that the SAT is still written for whites, I dug up some articles online. I found that in the 2009 scores, Asians have outscored the Whites in the Writing Section, which ironically has been stereotyped as their weakness. While many Asian families endorse rigorous study habits in their children, I think it is safe to say that it is possible to do well on the SAT with the proper study habits regardless of color. Thus, it is important to take preparation and education quality into consideration when looking at the test's average, which applies to every ethnicity. Eliminating racism is not an easy task, but we must be sure not to inadvertently promote it in the process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)