Oh baby, it’s so sexy when you chain me to the radiator

BlackSnakeMoan.jpg
From the acclaimed misogynist director of Hustle & Flow comes a new movie in which Samuel L. Jackson chains a skeletal Christina Ricci to his radiator and attempts to “cure her of promiscuity.” I saw the trailer a few months ago and found it hard to believe. But seeing the film’s website, which is up now, I realize they’re completely serious. It’s not even done in a pulp-y style.
Ricci told MTV her character is “a girl who suffers physical flashbacks to a childhood rape. Some women and young girls freak out, panic, and need to cut themselves. [My character] needs to cause herself the same kind of pain when she has panic attacks by having anonymous sex.”
Sounds like being chained up in only her underwear and then preached to is exactly the kind of healing process this character needs.
The creepiest thing about the movie, or at least its marketing, is that it’s not only about selling Ricci’s body. It’s about selling the idea of sex with a girl who’s been abused and who’s clearly got a lot of problems. There’s even an interactive feature (if you click on “experience” in the upper left corner — click here for a screenshot) that allows you to drag two pills across the screen and then watch a video of Ricci collapsing. Now she’s yours for the violating! Plus, the “page loading” graphics that appear every time you click feature her silhouette struggling against the chain. A recurring image in the film as well, I’d imagine.


I’m sure this is going to go over well with the Axe-wearing crowd, but don’t you worry, girls! There are also features for you, such as the “Hard Out Here for a Nymph” quiz (screenshot here), which basically glamorizes Ricci’s emotionally disturbed, abused, and drug-addled. state. (It’s also a nice reference to the hit Oscar-winning song from Hustle & Flow.) If your quiz results prove how slutty you are, the game will tell you “You ain’t right yet” – which is apparently Samuel L. Jacksons refrain as he keeps Ricci chained up. Handily, the site also provides you with code so you can embed your “nymph” score in your MySpace page.
Too bad it’s a bit late for you to send your special someone an official Black Snake Moan Valentine’s Day e-cards, which allows you to upload a photo of yourself so that YOU appear chained to the radiator in a midriff top and cutoffs. Why say “I love you” when you can say: “They say if you love something / you gotta set it free/ but you and I know / that ain’t right. / This Valentine’s Day / if you love someone / chain ‘em up / then they’ll know how much / you really care.” (I wish I was making this shit up.)
To cheer myself up, I created a belated v-day card that features the aforementioned misogynist director’s face on Ricci’s body:
brewervalentine.JPG
The Sundance reviewer pointed out that the film looks and feels a lot like Elia Kazan’s Baby Doll, in which a rural Southern man tries to seduce his best friend’s “distraught but sensually aroused” child bride. (Compare the movie poster to this still of Ricci.) Most reviewers agree that, like Baby Doll, Black Snake Moan is long on scandal and short on substance. I don’t know if I’ll have the stomach to actually watch this whole movie, but I’m not surprised at that assessment.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

104 Comments

  1. Maurag
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    What struck me as being personally very freaky is that this film has basically the same plot as a theatre piece I produced when studying Drama A level: a man kidnaps a group of women and imprisons, tortures and preaches at them in his house as a punishment for what he sees as their “sins”.
    The difference between the film and our drama was that *we* were attempting to illustrate the damaging nature of misogyny, not portray sexist abuse as erotic.

  2. Samantha
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 9:05 am | Permalink

    Ten to one odds, they have Ricci’s character fall in love with her captor out of gratitude for being “made right.” This truly makes me want to vomit.

  3. Posted February 28, 2007 at 9:25 am | Permalink

    From the director’s interview:
    “Lemme tell you about this movie I wanna do, where this guy’s playing dominoes with his boys, and his pregnant wife is in the other room, playing music really loud, and he gets mad at her, he goes in there and throws the radio out the window. And he starts punching on his pregnant wife with a closed fist. And everybody’s ripping him off of her, and they’re like, “Oh, man, you can’t be hittin’ on her.” And they take the girl upstairs, and he’s punching at everybody, and they try to sober him up under the shower. And then he goes outside, calling up to his girl, “Come down here, bring my girl down here! Yo, Stella!” And then Stella goes downstairs and she fucks him. And I think to myself, Wow, that’s taught in high schools.”
    Point taken.

  4. manda
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Zattaichan, I wasn’t commenting on the material. I am sceptical, but I’ll withhold judgement if and until I see it. My comment was directed towards the marketing – it’s not exactly what I would consider a work of art.

  5. Posted February 28, 2007 at 10:50 am | Permalink

    I thought this movie was sapose to be satiricle and I wanted to see it, I probably will check it out.

  6. Posted February 28, 2007 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    I read that Salon interview, now I want to see Hustle & Flow, and can’t wait to see Black Snake Moan. Some of the responses I’ve seen on here remind me of something I might read on here, except they seem to actually watch the movies before lambasting them.

  7. elektrodot
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 11:11 am | Permalink

    babypop, were trying to talk about the marketing, which pretty much speaks for itself. and with marketing like that, i know i sure as hell wont be giving this guy my money.

  8. Posted February 28, 2007 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    Yes, I can read. The Web site wasn’t fully developed when I first heard about this movie – I believe it was just the poster and a few stills. Based on the poster alone, I wanted to see it.

  9. Xana
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Thank you for finally covering this movie. I saw the trailer a few weeks ago and couldn’t believe what I was seeing. I read up on the film a bit more and found out that in the end, it’s really a love story between Jackson’s character and Ricci’s.
    Um…yeah.
    I think everyone pretty much summed up how I feel about a movie containing a woman shackled with a chain and a man who needs to “tame” her.

  10. String_Bean_Jen
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Posted above by Convexexile from a Christina Ricci interview in Nylon:
    “I’m worried that people won’t understand that the nature of a girl like this is to exploit herself; it’s not a case of the filmmakers being exploitative,” she explains. “My worst nightmare is to have people think I would be part of something like that. I loved the script because Rae was such a perfect example of the kind of girl who was abused and in order to never be powerless again takes control of her abuse by abusing herself….So I thought this was a great opportunity to show somebody like that in a deeper way. And, I just feel so bad for her, you know?”
    On wearing a 40 lb chain that left her covered in bruises: “It’s so gratifying. You feel like you’re really doing you’re job, really earning your money.”
    I just can’t imagine why Christina would want to be part of a film in which a man keeping her tied down in chains, and reprimanding her with “you ain’t right yet” when she tries to escape from them, and consider this to be a deep exploration of a woman scarred from childhood sexual abuse. Is this a complex exploration into a woman’s psyche? Or is it merely exploitative of her body and her sexual actings out?
    There were many Disability Rights groups who protested outside of the film “Million Dollar Baby” nationwide. I wonder if any feminist groups, rape crisis centers, or anyone who deals with victims of sexual abuse will protest outside Black Snake Moan. Maybe not even protest, but I would be interested in handing out information and literature about getting help (counseling, group therapy, hotlines, web sites, etc.) if you’ve been a victim of sexual or other abuse. I think it would be important to counteract the film’s (possible) message that chaining up a woman who is acting out sexually as a possible effect of her sexual abuse is a good and therapeutic idea.

  11. Posted February 28, 2007 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Aww hellz, what’s “wrong” with Million Dollar Baby?
    Are you people this simplistic and reactionary about everything? I feel like I’m the lone dissenting feminist out here.

  12. elektrodot
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

    well no ones going to want to talk to you about it with a tone like that and saying “yes, i can read”, when i wasnt even being rude. nobody likes a jerk.

  13. EG
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, right, BabyPop. Nothing’s more “simplistic and reactionary” than being outraged, upset, and disgusted when an abusing women is portrayed as sexy. As opposed to your incisive analysis, which involved seeing the movie because of its soundtrack.
    I have little patience with the argument that we should see it before condemning it, because the poor widdle director has nothing do with the publicity. The point of publicity is to get asses in seats. If they get asses in seats, it’s successful publicity, and we’ll see more of it. I see no reason why I, as a feminist, should encourage this kind of publicity. If that means a decent movie sinks (one can only hope it sinks), then perhaps the lesson there will be to market movies without insulting women. I can live with that.

  14. iscah
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    BabyPop, you say above that, “The Web site wasn’t fully developed when I first heard about this movie – I believe it was just the poster and a few stills. Based on the poster alone, I wanted to see it.”
    But you don’t say anything at all about WHY. What about that image made you think, ‘this is really something I want to see!’ Then you criticize everyone else who reacted to the poster differently – seeing something that offended and upset them? At the moment, you’re not so much dissenting as planting your flag of opposition and then resolutely standing with your mouth closed. Try offering an opposign viewpoint, give us a rational reason to see it another way. The promised soundtrack may be great, but that doesn’t make the marketing images any less disturbing.

  15. iscah
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

    BTW, for anyone who hasn’t followed the link above, the interview Salon did with the director of the film is great, and definitely interesting reading. It clarifies, especially, that the film is NOT what the posters might lead you to believe.
    Also, nearly unbelieveably, the letters currently up discussing the article are, in general, quite insightful and interesting as well, with the exception of some nasty, inane babble by someone who calls himself Barney Fife.

  16. Posted February 28, 2007 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    Why? Because I *like* that that style of artwork. I *like* sexploitation movies. And I am not too put-off by the content of the marketing to want to see the movie.
    As a southern girl, so much of what I see depicted (from comedians, from musicians, in movies and the written word) is either an overly-romanticized version of the South, or a complete disdain for it. Especially in the mainstream, the real conflict/love-hate is rarely depicted.
    For me, the artwork sets up a totally different expectation than what many are reading into it. I don’t expect this to be a movie about saving the whore. Maybe it will be, I don’t know. I feel like there’s room out there for this type of art, and this type of movie, and that I don’t want to apply affective fallacy to it, the artist, or the director just because the premise, in its simplest terms, is perceived as sexist.
    As far as *disturbing* – the only thing on the Web site that I find disturbing is the quiz. And I actually find that more ridiculous than disturbing.

  17. UltraMagnus
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    “Aww hellz, what’s “wrong” with Million Dollar Baby?
    Are you people this simplistic and reactionary about everything?”
    Babypop,
    I’d like to know which feminist here criticized MDB. Because String_Bean_Jean was talking about DISABILITY RIGHTS groups protesting MDB, NOT feminists. Now who’s simplistic and reactionary?

  18. Posted February 28, 2007 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Ultra – I am aware that DISABILITY RIGHTS groups were the ones prostesting MDB, I was wondering what, about it, that they were protesting. The ending, I guess?

  19. EG
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    Well, right. And nobody’s saying that you can’t or shouldn’t like it. What I am saying is that I find the marketing so very repulsively anti-feminist that I won’t see it. You are the one transforming that disagreement into personal attack (“reactionary and simplistic”).

  20. Posted February 28, 2007 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

    I *like* sexploitation movies.
    BabyPop, this seems tantamount to an admission that the film is sexploitation.
    Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. The marketing suggests that it is, and we here have been focusing on the marketing — (1) the marketing itself is horrid, and (2) if the marketing is an accurate portrayal of the movie, then the movie is pretty horrid too.
    You say you like sexploitation movies. I can’t fathom why you’d like these, but fine. Whatever. Most of us here find sexploitation demeaning and oppressive, for a whole host of reasons that could probably eat up a year’s worth or more of space on this blog. That’s not “simplistic and reactionary.” That’s objecting to something we find morally repugnant.
    I mean, let’s say this was a film about a passionate romance between characters played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dakota Fanning (I’m specifically NOT thinking of her recently-filmed and highly controversial rape scene, which I do think is importantly different), marketed in a manner that made Dakota appear as sexually titillating as possible. Would we be “simplistic and reactionary” for condemning the movie’s marketing as child porn?

  21. redwards
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    from one southern girl to another, BabyPop, you’re an idiot.

  22. UltraMagnus
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    Babypop, here’s your comment again, emphasis mine;

    Aww hellz, what’s “wrong” with Million Dollar Baby?
    Are you people this simplistic and reactionary about EVERYTHING? I feel like I’m the lone dissenting feminist out here.”
    Now perhaps you meant for everything to refer to films like BSM, however in addition to your comment about MDB it seems like you were making us out to protest every little thing that came along.
    And yes, the Disabilities Right’s group were protesting the ending.

  23. JustAnotherJane
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    As someone who has recovered from an eating disorder, I found the images of Christina Ricci extremely triggering on another level. Especially since we know she lost a bunch of weight, which in my distorted mind, can mean ‘disciplined.’ Now she’s in chains getting disciplined some more. She’s just reduced to a body, in a way that’s more disturbing to me than seeing skinny girls running around in bikinis on other shows.
    From a body-image perspective alone, there is something very disturbing going on here as well. You know they would never put a fat girl in this role, but I can’t even imagine them putting someone who looks more fit(yet still conventionally attractive), such as I dunno, Charlize Theron or Katherine Heigl, in this role. Maybe because Ricci’s small size infantalized her more? There is so much overlap in the issues, I can’t even begin to articulate.

  24. EG
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

    Yes, I hadn’t thought of that, but you’re so right, Jane. It’s another way of eroticizing Ricci’s newfound skinniness and associating that eroticism even more explicitly with vulnerability. Ricci doesn’t look like she could pick up a radiator and beat her captor to death (though if that’s the end of the movie, I will definitely go see it and take back every negative thing I said!).

  25. BabyPop
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 3:10 pm | Permalink

    “tantamount to an admission that the film is sexploitation” – The statement I made was in regards to the poster, which, yes, is most obviously a nod towards old b-movie advertising.
    JustAnotherJane – intersting analysis.
    Redwards – duh. Sorry to talk out my ass on the internet.
    All – to my overarching statement, “am I the only feminist on here who’s not offended by this marketing campaign,” I guess the answer is a resounding “yes.”

  26. UltraMagnus
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I might actually see this this weekend (pay for it? hmmmm *wicked grin* Thank god for certain movie theaters).
    I just read the village voice review of this and there’s an aspect of Rae (Ricci’s character) “cure” that I’m sure all of us feminists will find familiar:
    ********possible spoiler alert*****
    Ricci’s Rae, she of the belly-baring Confederate flag-tee and unclean panties, puts on some decent clothes and even reckons she might get hitched
    and:
    Brewer contrives to get Rae all gussied up and ready to shake her thing down the aisle.
    And nothing cures sluttiness like marriage ladies. NOTHING.
    (forgive me if the HTML tags don’t work. ‘puter’s wonky)

  27. Vervain
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    I found the marketing of the movie really repugnant. As others have said, I don’t know if the movie is good or bad, but I will definitely refrain from seeing it, purely to discourage the success of this kind of “porntastic” marketing. I’m all for sending a message to advertisers that we human beings are complex enough to occasionally think beyond “eat it, kill it, or fuck it” and can actually be interested in seeing a good drama because we like drama and don’t need to be lured in with promises of nekkid titties and explosions. [/rant]
    As for Ms. Ricci, I don’t know what’s going through her head, but if this movie is all it’s presented to be, I’d have far more respect for her if she just said, “They drove a truckful of money up to my house, what was I gonna do?” Watching her go through all those elaborate contortions to try and justify the role as some kind of “victim empowerment” (which she will no doubt use as a shield to hide from her critics) was just sad. And while you can argue that a girl who has been raped might see promiscuity as a way of taking back “control” of her sexuality, I don’t see how having some self-righteous man deciding it’s his job to “fix” you, against your will, no less, (and then marching you down the aisle?) doesn’t take that self-claimed control right back away again. Where’s the self-determination in that?

  28. UltraMagnus
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    As for Ms. Ricci, I don’t know what’s going through her head, but if this movie is all it’s presented to be, I’d have far more respect for her if she just said, “They drove a truckful of money up to my house, what was I gonna do?”
    (my tags work, awesome)
    Vervain, that’s the POINT. They DIDN’T back up a truck full of money to her house. They weren’t even considering her for the role, SHE was the one who wanted it and she sent photos of herself half naked to Craig Brewster for an audition.
    This was all her.
    I will try to see if I can get to see the movie free this weekend, by hook or crook. Though what I will be paying money for is Zodiac (and I will see Zodicac, at least once. But pay for it twice. wink wink)

  29. the frog queen
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Not that anyone cares, but I thought that the movie looked neat and you can read my opinion on it here.
    http://www.painfulreminder.blogspot.com
    after carefully reading all 73 comments I’m gonna have to say I still think I got the right idea.

  30. Shadow32
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    When i saw the first posters, I thought it must be some kind of parody of the old “Mandingo” bodice rippers and the like. As it is, the ad campaign completely turned me off (regardless of what merits the movie may actually have).

  31. UltraMagnus
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    Frog,
    We were trying to discuss the marketing around the film but obvisously that got tossed out the window.
    I just read your blog post and what makes you think Sam Jackson’s character is Catholic? I missed that either in the trailer or the reviews I’ve read. Southern Black people aren’t traditionally catholic, but either Southern Baptist or Methodists (in my case).
    And this comment:
    I wanted to post my thoughts on this movie (that I have not yet seen btw) on my own blog since my comments would either be ignored or cause anger on Feministing.
    just disturbed me. As long as you’re making valid points and not trolling no one will ignore you or be angered just because you have a different opinion. I don’t always agree with every thing people have to say, I recently disagreed on feeling sorry for Britney Spears.
    A lot of the times people get upset is when people ARE trolling or making wild general statements about something (i.e. all feminists hate men, etc. etc).
    I’ve read all 73 comments as well and no one here as condemned anyone else for saying they want to see the film, just that they don’t want to risk spending money on something that *might* not be good.

  32. Posted February 28, 2007 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

    What I find weird is the passionate defense of the film. I looked on IMDB, and when people took offense and found the ads disturbing…the response, Racist. Since we are ASSUMING that Sam L Jackson is up to no good. And I have yet to find his plan in the film particularly sound.
    PLEASE! The ads are meant to look creepy and have a Deliverance quality. Just a small woman bound and held against her will while a guy just walks around a leers at her.
    What about that set up is worse for the race of either actor? It is just plain garbage (the argument and film).
    She needs to be bound and forced to find real love? Find God?
    Man, is it the faith aspect that somehow makes this movie and the idea behind it palatable? Is it okay to do this is you are obeying God’s will? Yuck.

  33. Sayna
    Posted February 28, 2007 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    I just lost all respect for Christina Ricci and The Human Race isn’t faring so well on my list, either.

  34. Posted March 1, 2007 at 1:09 am | Permalink

    Did anyone else see the Saturday Night Live skit making fun of Black Snake Moan?
    Here’s a link to it.
    Still, the thought of this movie just makes me gag. *shudder* I’m so tired of dudes churning out films filled with emaciated women who are barely clothed and in chains and calling it new and shocking. Yes, I’m so incredibly shocked that you made a movie with a half-naked chained up woman. No one’s EVER thought of THAT before! Ugh. Stupid.

  35. EG
    Posted March 1, 2007 at 1:16 am | Permalink

    OK, Megan, that SNL skit kinda rocks. It wasn’t that good, even. But it still rocked.

  36. Posted March 1, 2007 at 4:17 am | Permalink

    I’m really disappointed to see so many people saying they’ve lost respect for Christina Ricci because she’s in this movie when none of you have even seen the movie.
    Hate the ad campaign all you like! Be vocal in your disdain for it! Boycott the film! I perfectly understand why this imagery is pissing people off.
    But I really think it’s going off the rails to condemn the actress for appearing in a film that you haven’t even seen.
    And why isn’t anyone losing respect for Samuel Jackson? Why is it only the woman getting dumped on?

  37. the frog queen
    Posted March 1, 2007 at 8:57 am | Permalink

    UltraMagnus- I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that he was Catholic but I may have misread something.
    Also, what is this Trolling thing people keep talking about? Where did this expression get thought up? I’ve been reading this page for months and still am confused by the term.

  38. Vervain
    Posted March 1, 2007 at 9:52 am | Permalink
  39. Posted March 1, 2007 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    Megan, thanks for that link. That was pretty awesome.
    “That’s a good little half-naked white boy.”
    Hehehehe. I heart Rainn Wilson.

  40. the frog queen
    Posted March 1, 2007 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Thanks Vervain, I actually didn’t know that.

  41. mooserider
    Posted March 1, 2007 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    The review by Dustin Rowles on Pajiba is fantastic – http://www.pajiba.com/black-snake-moan.htm
    read it.

  42. legallyblondeez
    Posted March 2, 2007 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Ditto to mooserider–I came back over here just to post a link to Pajiba and Dustin’s excellent review.

  43. JoanKelly
    Posted March 2, 2007 at 3:15 pm | Permalink

    The director in the Salon interview:
    “A Streetcar Named Desire, if you just kind of updated it a little bit — I think people would just cry unbelievable misogyny and sexism about that movie…”
    He confuses misogyny and sexism with the thoughtful portrayal of such. Streetcar Named Desire illustrated Stanley’s misogyny, and how Blanch got punished the way she did (by being raped by Stanely and sent off to a mental institution to shut her up afterwards) for her character’s expression of untamed female desire. It also, I might add, managed to make Stanley sympathetic in parts, without excusing or ignoring his violence – something the director of BSM also doesn’t understand.
    He claims people came after him re: Hustle and Flow because he didn’t address the issue of pimps exploiting women. Then claims he ignored it because he “wasn’t interested in it,” and didn’t think the character was interested in it.
    Oh! Got it, my mistake – I thought ignoring it meant you didn’t care about it. Turns out you just weren’t INTERESTED in it.
    Here’s my gut feeling about the hype on Hustle and Flow and the don’t-judge-me protests around Black Snake Moan: This white guy knows that if he hides behind black male characters, a certain amount of white people – including white women – will not want to seem racist by objecting to that black character, and therefore the movies will get a pass. He tries to play off Samuel Jackson’s character as being part of the healing and revolutionary blues culture – ends his Salon interview by extolling the virtues of blues singers and how brave they were for talking about what they talked about in their songs, during a time when, as black men, “you could get hung from a tree for speaking your mind.” He tries to co-opt that tradition and insert himself inside it – and completely ignores the fact that there were black women blues singers as well.
    The fact that he would presume to marry the idea of courageousness and rebellion under oppression (in black communities in the south post-slavery) with a man dominating a rebellious woman – that’s all I need to know about this man, never mind his fucking movies.

  44. Doug S.
    Posted March 3, 2007 at 12:54 am | Permalink

    I read the New York Times review of the movie today. Supposedly, Christina Ricci’s character is kept chained up because she’s essentially completely out of her mind, the chain-radiator combination being the closest equivalent to a padded room that Samuel L. Jackson’s character can find after she throws herself at him.
    It’s still a ridiculous and exploitative premise, though, regardless of whether or not the director succeeds in his goal of having Samuel L. Jackson’s character appear innocent and noble.

  45. donna darko
    Posted March 3, 2007 at 1:01 am | Permalink

    Amen, Joan. I’m with you.

  46. donna darko
    Posted March 3, 2007 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    bob, jeff, zettai, jp, you’re sick fucks and trolls if you still want to see this movie.

  47. String_Bean_Jen
    Posted March 5, 2007 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    I’m curious. Did anyone see this movie this past weekend? I’ve seen one or two commercials on network TV since this post (though it certainly hasn’t been marketed as much as, say, Music & Lyrics) and they put a very different spin on it from the initial commercial I saw. The new one seemed to be focues on Christina and Justin Timberlake holding each other, rather than Christina coming up half-naked from the blanket, chain around her waist.

  48. Posted April 20, 2007 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    I find this one hundred percent DISGUSTING. First of all, this movie promotes these kinds of situations, which DO HAPPEN in today’s world. It is a crime against humanity that someone chose to glorify this kind of situation with this movie.
    Second, the idea that people are going to make money off of it is appalling.
    Also, Christina Ricci, who has a history of anorexia, looks extremely slim in the posters (to the point of looking skeletal). This movie, therefore, perpetuates an idea that you must be a skeleton to be beautiful. It sets an unreal ideal of what is beautiful.
    I hate the idea of someone being chained to a radiator and “taught” how to behave. This is just ridiculous. Yes, promiscuity is self-destructive, but if that is how she chooses to deal with her past rape, then that is how she chooses to deal with it.
    As a past victim, I cannot condemn others’ ways of dealing with their trauma. I haven’t dealt with mine in the most healthy of ways. But for a writer to create a movie where a woman who deals with her traumatic experience in one way and is then kidnapped and chained to a radiator (thus creating yet another traumatic experience for her to have to cope with) is disgusting.
    I will not see this movie, and I encourage every self-respecting woman and man to not see it either.

  49. Posted April 20, 2007 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    I find this one hundred percent DISGUSTING. First of all, this movie promotes these kinds of situations, which DO HAPPEN in today’s world. It is a crime against humanity that someone chose to glorify this kind of situation with this movie.
    Second, the idea that people are going to make money off of it is appalling.
    Also, Christina Ricci, who has a history of anorexia, looks extremely slim in the posters (to the point of looking skeletal). This movie, therefore, perpetuates an idea that you must be a skeleton to be beautiful. It sets an unreal ideal of what is beautiful.
    I hate the idea of someone being chained to a radiator and “taught” how to behave. This is just ridiculous. Yes, promiscuity is self-destructive, but if that is how she chooses to deal with her past rape, then that is how she chooses to deal with it.
    As a past victim, I cannot condemn others’ ways of dealing with their trauma. I haven’t dealt with mine in the most healthy of ways. But for a writer to create a movie where a woman who deals with her traumatic experience in one way and is then kidnapped and chained to a radiator (thus creating yet another traumatic experience for her to have to cope with) is disgusting.
    I will not see this movie, and I encourage every self-respecting woman and man to not see it either.

  50. 300poundmanhatingdyke
    Posted September 8, 2007 at 5:39 am | Permalink

    Christina Ricci has an athletic healthy body, unlike the obese majority of females. None of you saw the film so are in no position to judge. You’re the same kind of prudes that hate porn. None of you would have been born had your father not objectified your mother enough to have sex with her. Is every woman on this site an obese man hating sex hating dyke or do you just post like it?

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

229 queries. 1.549 seconds