The whole concept of this movie is nauseating. Making kidnapping sexy, eroticizing the abuse of an already traumatized girl--and that's not even touching on the appalling racist voyeurism of having Samuel Jackson being the disciplinarian.

"Sounds like being chained up in only her underwear and then preached to is exactly the kind of healing process this character needs."

Word.

Wow, thank you for the analysis. I was extremely disturbed when I saw a commercial for this film during prime time TV, and have been meaning to look it up ever since. It seemed so disturbing that I couldn't believe they were showing it during prime time. The subject matter is so intense that I'm surprised this film can be advertised on the likes of NBC/CBS/ABC at all.

I am extremely disappointed in Christina Ricci, certainly an icon of her generation for any outcast growing up. She stood out in the vanilla masses of Hollywood, and now it is difficult to distinguish her from the next frail starlet. Where once she was amazing and complex in "Buffalo 66" and "Sleepy Hollow," now she is being abused in more than one way in this shudder-inducing film.

Do you think she thinks of this as a thought-provoking, important role?

From the trailer, it looks like this movie is about a male who ‘cures’ a woman of her active sexuality by chaining her up in his house, imprisoning her in the domestic sphere. There’s even a clip of her being yanked back on the chain like a disobedient pet. At one point Ricci's character Rae tells Jackson's Lazarus, “You can take this chain off me now,� to which he replies, “No, you ain’t right yet.�

And the title, Black Snake Moan? Only slightly sexual. Really have to think about that.

For lack of anything else to say, that is so messed up...

I'm highly disgusted.

This isn't a joke? Really? And who was the graphic designer on that poster? You've got Samuel L. Jackson with a type of halo on his head next to a pic that looks like that Catholic Sacred Heart (the chains make it look as though it is bleeding) and the supplicant woman below him.

And then all the drop-downs: Mess Around, Get Some. This is so so disturbing. I'm sure we'll get someone saying, "You should watch the movie before making any judgment." But when you market something like this, it's too blatantly sexist and sadistic to even bother.

Is he supposed to be her savior in some weird way? Is that why the imagery?

Yes. Let's not forget the racial overtones of having an old, literally crazy lookin' black man chain up a young white girl in his house! No no! Nothing at all with THAT. humph.

I didn't like "Hustle & Flow" thought it was WAY overrated, especially since I'd grown up visiting Memphis all my childhood, (the critics liked to refer to Memphis as "exotic" sometimes) and I couldn't find sympathy for the "pimp" character at all. Often times we know why women become prostitutes, however he had a chance to explore why men become pimps and it never surfaced, which made me like the film a lot less.

I would be dissappointed in Sam Jackson, however he had the balls to do "Snakes on a Plane" so I will give him a free pass for that.

wait a minute...This publicity campaign is appalling. But. We should see the movie before we decide that its content is also truly appalling, regardless of how we view the director's previous work. we know that trailers, posters, and promo material in general doesn't always truck with the content or message of a film. Once the promotional machine gets a hold of a film with anything resembling controversial sexual content, films that aren't primarily about it get warped into soft-core porn for the sake of attracting as many numbskull ticket-buyers as possible. Remember the furor when people discovered that Eyes Wide Shut wasn't primarily an orgy movie?

maybe for now we should concentrate on the practice of selling films with the humiliated female body.

Amanda, you need to check out the poster for Hostel 2 then.

I'd sent the link to Jessica already but I'll post it here, it seems appropriate, though it's totally NSFW:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31691

Sorry for the long URL but I don't know how to do the HTML links here.

no thank you. next someone will say the cristina ricci character is empowering herself by exorcising her demons this way.

"next someone will say the cristina ricci character is empowering herself by exorcising her demons this way."

*snicker* ;)

Aw, hell. I had only heard the soundtrack, and I was really optimistic about this one. I guess I still have some shred of hope that the movie isn't terrible, but the marketing certainly is.

I may still buy the soundtrack. No, wait, I'll just go pirate it.

very empowerful, UM.

nick, just pirate the movie too. rae is just a tramp. that's what the synopsis on the movie's website calls her character.

Oh, but donna, she IS being empowered. After all, the only place women can have power is in a house, so by keeping her at home, the Samuel Jackson is actually empowering her!

he's blessing her with his black snake moan.

Wow...I should've known, but this should have a trigger warning.

That's truly creepy.

I first saw a preview for this movie months ago, but when I started seeing Samuel L. Jackson all over the place but no commercials, I was beginning to think that production was cut off. The commercial I saw 2 days ago proved me wrong.

This indeed looks like a disturbing exercise in popular BDSM fascination turned female-objectification. Ever since middle school I've noticed that every situational sex joke on tv or in the movies revolves around somebody making jokes about handcuffs, whips, or being tied up. It's a popular trend that lends far too easily to misogynistic exploits such as what we're seeing with Black Snake Moan.

Ugh, just look at the title. "Black Snake Moan." Because there's no greater way to attract an audience than to enforce the stereotype that black men have 14 inch cocks and white women are all about the black cock. They're all a bunch of Lisa Lampanelli's, only not joking.

I'm not going to watch anything with Samuel L. Jackson anymore.

This is what Ricci says in defense of the film in an interview in Nylon, after claiming the film is not misogynistic.

"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."

Just thought I'd throw that out there for discussion.

Ricci is also a girl who's had severe body issues and is now "comfortable" with herself at a whopping size 0 and in an interview in Los Angeles magazine admitted to thoughts of plastic surgery in order to change her "unique" looks.

She also wanted the role so badly she sent half naked photos of herself to the director and producer.

"girl who was abused and in order to never be powerless again takes control of her abuse by abusing herself"

what did i tell ya?

I am thinking that Amanda has a point. My reading of the publicity is that Jackson and Ricci do NOT have sex, not that this is a selling point or proof that the film is at heart actually feminist. Clearly the purient portion of the ad campaign promises Black/White sex sex sex. Disturbing yes very. Maybe we could pool our resources and rent it from Netflix and arrive at a definitive view.

(Warning: long-winded comment ahead :))

I'm having a very hard time reserving judgment on this one, because even if the movie itself can be used to reinforce feminist values, it's being marketed as pure porn, which means that the INTENT of it, at least, is decidedly non-feminist. I want to vomit disease-infected blood on the producers.

That said, and I may be taking my life into my own hands here, I was struck by how much of a progressive message I could read into Hostel (though I make no representations as to whether this was intentional on the part of the filmmakers, or purely the result of my obsessive desire to make everything in the world prove me right :)). Hostel is a deeply, deeply, DEEPLY disturbing and disgusting movie. There were several parts where I very nearly threw up. But as I thought about it, I realized that the movie contains (again, no knowledge re intent) a really powerful message about objectification of people (only a tiny step from women in particular) and that it does so in a way that is at the same time heavy-handed yet unlikely to philosophically turn away the very people we need to reach.

Taken at face value, Hostel is only the latest in a long line of movies trying to desensitize us to violence against fellow human beings. But on another level, I think it demonstrates very nicely the connection between objectification, de-personification, and violence. Again, quite possibly projecting here -- but at the very least, if the message is there, we can put it to use, can't we?

I guess the thing to do here is post ***SPOILER ALERT***? Even though I think everyone pretty much knows what happens in the movie.

An early scene in the movie shows three young idiot prickish high school/college-age boys delighting over how they're about to get laid by all the "easy" women and prostitutes in Amsterdam, get all the pot they want without trouble from the cops, etc. It's a really stupid scene and it made me hate the boys. On the train, they run into an older man who gives them a "tip" about where to find the best/easiest/something girls (some smallish eastern European country). They're grateful until one of them realizes the guy is vaguely hitting on him. He's instantly repulsed and tells the guy off. Later on, we see the objectification of the teen taken to terrifying heights as the old man ends up torturing and killing the kid who brushed him off.

There are lots of creeptastic scenes like this, but I think the best/creepiest scene is where one of the three boys escapes from the torture dungeon and is able to pass, briefly, as one of the torturers, who it turns out are in fact rich "customers" who pay a premium for the right to maim and kill innocent foreigners plucked up from the streets (American kids fetch the highest price). In describing the draw of the business to the escaped kid, the man explains it by talking about (if I recall correctly) how he progressed from paying prostitutes for sex, to beating prostitutes, to this business. He relates the power that he feels in seeing the abject terror in a young girl's eyes to sexual stimulation, and the dialogue draws a clear connection between the slow dehumanization that occurs when people are used for sex, such that ultimately people are devalued completely, to the point that their lives themselves are worthless in the eyes of their oppressors.

Now, obviously, watching this scene kinda made me want to do some killing of my own. But as my rage subsided and I thought about it, I actually appreciated how unflinchingly and brutally honest the film is. Whether they meant to or not, the filmmakers just spelled out an incredible feminist message: sexually objectifying people intrinsically plays to our violent and hateful impulses. Sexual objectification, in essence, IS violence.

Maybe this isn't as exciting to everyone else, but I was blown away that this mainstream movie, beloved by American teenage male audiences, could have hidden in plain sight such an AWESOME and powerful feminist message. I have no idea if this could even possibly be the case with a movie like BSM (huh, I just realized it's only missing a "D" -- wonder if that's intentional), that so blatantly plays on anti-woman, anti-black stereotypes to market itself (whereas Hostel's draw was more to the straight-up slasher/horror crowd). But I'm willing to entertain the possibility that, at the very least, we could turn this movie on its head with enough education.

law fairy, i appreciate your view on that movie even if i did think it was frat boy porn with some shitty "gore" (in qoutes because ive seen some gore and that aint it). i can see how you got that analysis from it but im gonna have to say, i think the director was going for nothing more than the afore mentioned qualities of the movie and maybe a joke or two about americans being jerks, hence why they were more expensive cuz everyone wanted to kill them.

black snake moan looks horrendous. i cant beleive something like that is out...god i can just imagine the people that would go to see it...when i went to a movie and saw the long preview for this it seemed as if most of the people were uncomfortable and were like "uhh wtf" when in came on.

you must be at 120 wpm, LF!!!!!

the realism of hostel is plausible, LF.

"Clearly the purient portion of the ad campaign promises Black/White sex sex sex"

the prurience was a sexually abused girl chained to a radiator. secondarily was the age and creepiness of jackson. tertiary was his race.

I saw a preview for this last year and was so appalled. Apart from the blatant sexism which has been discussed here, I was really disturbed by the racial imagery. The preview looked like something that would be used to whip a white mob into a lynching frnezy. In the preview I saw, it is even implied that Jackson's character rapes Ricci's character while she is unconscious. And as we all know, allegations of black men raping white women (or, hell, *looking* at them) has led to the murder of countless black men in the usa.

I will not be seeing this movie.

(I blogged about it then...
http://sadie-sabot.livejournal.com/22227.html?mode=reply)

Why am I not surprised that the director of a movie about a "sympathetic" pimp is a white guy? Basically meaning that it's mainly people who never have any contact with that kind of life who feel free to glamourize it.

Black Snake Moan reminds me of an obscure French film I saw several years ago. In the film, a woman was chained to a radiator by her abusive husband. She managed to detach it from the wall and used it to beat him to death. I confess to being very satisfied with that outcome.

Law Fairy,

I didn't get out of Hostel what you did (it was pretty much, horrific American males get what's coming to them) and in the end the girls who lead them to the torture in the first place are run over which I got a "that'll teach those bitches" message.

Then again, I'm not into torture porn nor Eli Roth and as a horror fan I thought the "gore" was minimal at beast (though that's not what I was looking for, it's just that the movie was touted as being the goriest thing to come around in years) and the plot non-existent. You really did have a half an hour of frat porn (OMG, look at the neked boobies! Foreign girls are so much more open than American girls!) and then some outlandish violence.

I'll stick with my 80s John Carpenter.

the first thing that creeped me out was a sexually abused, blonde christina ricci and i was only speaking for myself as far as BSM was presented to me on feministing. men or women will see sex or race first depending on their demographic.

some people say "saw" was a brilliant film while i thought it was the worse movie ever made.

I don't think the fact that it's being marketed as porn makes it un-feminist (since I don't think porn is inheritly un-feminist). I think the kicker is that it's being marketed as porn, along with the context - that is, the plot, and the reality that surrounds it.

That said, I don't think the plot (or at least what we know of it) makes it un-feminist either. We have no idea how the film will handle the situation - we don't know that the people involved in the film condone "fixing" a person by chaining them up any more than the Coen Brothers condone having your wife kidnapped to make an easy million from your father-in-law. That will depend on how the whole movie plays.

It seems the problem is really in the combination - the fact that it's made clear from the marketing that there is both a sick situation, and that it's "hot".

I'm not going to defend "saw" as a "brilliant" film, I was quite appalled when I saw it (in theaters, quit laughing.)

It was a rather god awful piece of film and don't get me started on Cary Elwes' acting. However I will defend it to a certain extent in that it had been a while since there was an R rated film for actual adults and I believe THAT'S what brought out the fan boys and girls (like myself). We'd been fed crap like The Ring and The Grudge and a whole host of other, "Asian girl with long black hair crawls around all freaky on the floor" remakes for the kiddie set and if you've been eating shit for a while, well, when something slightly not shit comes along you lap it up. Thus "Saw" and "Hostel" and the Rob Zombie film "Devil's Rejects." and then those became popular in the torture porn genre, so now that's all we're getting and it's getting tired as well.

UltraMagnus--

That's every genre in Hollywood--something works, and everyone just copies what worked, until it is so blasé that it can no longer be tolerated.

"I'm worried that people won't understand that the nature of a girl like this is to exploit herself..."

Right, Ms. Ricci. And, as everybody knows, the best way to help such a girl is to turn her in to the object of sadistic fantasy. I'm always so impressed by the way Hollywood treats the trauma of rape/sexual abuse and recovery from it--so nuanced, so complex, so sensitive.

Also, I have no intention of seeing the flick. They're marketing it this way because they think doing so will net them big bucks. If it's true, that's depressing, but it sure as hell isn't going to get them my money.

Yeah, I just can't take Christina Ricci seriously anymore.

I've had a similar problem since "Caspar," F.R. Fucked-up marketing aside, I do like that Samuel L. Jackson has come full circle and turned into his Dad (The Right Reverend Doctor Ossie Davis) in Jungle Fever.

Ultra, oh, I would be really surprised if the filmmakers meant for their movie to have any actual social value. I just meant, in my mind it was an example of how we can (for once!) be the ones co-opting the other side's messages. I mean, can you imagine anything that would infuriate the makers of this (likely) racist, misogynist piece of cow dung, more than to have it held up (legitimately, using choice scenes and dialogue from the film) as a feminist movie? How cool would it be to take all the fun out of it for the perverts and freaks by showing them how it actually trumpets FEMINIST ideals?

Obviously I don't know if it's possible with this movie. But to the extent it is -- I am all for publicizing the feminist nature of the film. Maybe even humiliate the makers in the process and make them lose face to their fucked-up audience. Muahahahaha.

Oh, gross. My husband and I saw a billboard for this movie a few weeks back and damn near drove off the road. Didn't know much about it then but it just looked wrong.

Black Snake Moan reminds me of an obscure French film I saw several years ago.

Title, please? ;)

Black Snake Moan is a song that's 70+ years old. I guess I'm not too hip to the cause, cuz I really want to see this. Scott Bomar contributes heavily to the soundtrack - that's good enough for me.

La Grande Illusion? Les Enfants du Paradis? À bout de souffle?

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the Salon.com review of the film's Sundance screening.

"The key to melodrama is to invent outlandish situations and play them straight, giving the characters as much dignity and integrity as you can. Lazarus has the purest of intentions toward Rae -- better than any other guy in town, anyway -- and when he finally unlocks her, it's not clear how much she wants to leave.

"As the cloudy-hearted Lazarus, Jackson has all the gravity and darkness you expect from him, but "Black Snake Moan" really belongs to Ricci. Rae moves through the movie like a weather system or a small but angry wild animal, spitting bile and invective wherever she goes. During and after the opening credits, she gives a trucker the finger and invites a street heckler to "kiss my Rebel coochie, faggot." She's playing a compulsive nymphomaniac and is nearly naked for most of the film, but the extraordinary thing about Ricci's performance is how non-exploitative and unprurient it is."

http://salonmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/mp3s/2007/feb/conversations_brewer.mp3

I'm not defending the film, since I havn't seen it nor am I very interested in doing so, but I think Brewer has some thoughful things to say regarding his film and speaks intelligently about his subject matter.

Again, not that I completely agree with the films marketing tactics or validty of execution in the final cut, but it's often not the case that a director has much control over the marketing of his/her own work, even if they were to protest the direction it was taken. The studios on the other hand, sadly, are (as the business entity they exist in) bound to want to make as much money from the film as possible, unfortunately exploiting any means they can to sell the sex of the picture and its controversies.

I find very often it's easy to bitch, slander, and be appalled by a poster or a movie trailer's content and obviously controversial subject matter (quite frankly because that's just having an honest reaction to something because it effects one's values immensely.) I think, though, that's it's important not to dismiss and simply move along outraged swinging around these reactionary viewpoint without examining the matter further. Everything's a bit more complicated than that, and if you don't think so, then grow up, because it's important.

Now, like I said, I haven't even seen the film and may, in fact, not like it or agree with it very much, who's to really say at the moment. I just think this filmmaker has some interesting points in the linked podcast and it's worth hearing his take on his own project before ruling him another misogynistic jackass based on a poster, trailer, and flash website content.

(My girlfriend sends me links to entries from this site because she's a regular reader. I signed up just to post this because I had something to say about it. Here's to hoping it gets said.)

Granted, I haven't seen the film, and like others have said, directors and actors have little to no control over marketing, etc. But that poster practically looks like an ad for porn. 'Everything is Hotter Down South' You've got to be kidding me. Between that and the 'Hard Out Here for a Nymph' Quiz on the website....do they actually expect people to take this seriously? Cause when you're making a film dealing with serious and sensitive issues related to gender, race and sexual abuse, slut jokes on your promo site are the obvious way to sell your film. I also love that the plot presents Rae's 'promiscuity' as what needs to be punished and fixed, yet the film's marketing attracts viewers by promising two hours of ogling a hot, half naked actress. Shaming and punishing female sexuality while sexually objectifying your lead actress for the audiences pleasure! Fantastic!
For what it's worth, my roommate and I recently discussed this film and he was similarly horrified, despite having a much higher tolerance for pop culture bullshit than I do.
And I know, yeah, yeah, we haven't seen it yet. But honestly, even if it gets great reviews, I won't go simply because I don't want to validate their marketing approach. (And whatever any of us wind up thinking of the film, I think its safe to say the marketing is vile.)

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this film and it's marketing.

What stands out to me, though, is the number of times the trailer - and one would assume the film - holds the shot for laughs. As if a terrified woman, chained in a stranger's house is some kind of comedy gold.

Also, a different synopsis I read mentions that she's abandoned by her... wait for it... mother. Surprised? Anyone?

I'm obviously going to see this movie - hell I may write my thesis on it - but it could be the most sympathetic movie of the year, but this marketing campaign is obscene.

SO glad I'm not the only one talking about how disturbing this movie seems.

Salon interview with the director

I've read the post, looked at the website, and read the comments. I keep thinking and thinking, but all I can come up with is:

What the hell is wrong with people?

"What the hell is wrong with people?"

If we all judged creative works by their subject matter and presentation alone, few people would ever read Lolita.

As I've said about this movie before, I was prepared to give this film a chance. Really, I was. I *liked* Hustle & Flow, I liked it A LOT. So, when I heard this was going to be an examination of the intertwining of culture/the blues/and the racial dynamics of sexuality, you know, that sounded interesting and promising.

And then came all the...SHIT. The cards. The promo material. The posters they are handing out for free in the displays in theaters, the myspace page, the whole thing. And it just...soured me in a way I cannot explain. Am I unfairly judging this movie by its marketing? Well, maybe. Or maybe I am judging it by the fact that the director and stars have allowed such marketing to take place, maybe I am objecting to the money this is going to make from the people who'll ADORE this marketing. I just can't shake the bone-deep, unsettling feeling this gives me. And if that means I am missing out on a truly great work of ART...well, so be it.

That trailer, when she is jerked to the ground, people LAUGHED when I saw that in the theater. Hardee-har-har! I aim to cure you of your wicked ways! And what is the wickedness? Sexuality? Well, I don't know, call me a slutty tramp, but I happen to think chaining unwilling PEOPLE to radiators is somewhat *more* of a "wicked" thing. Who is going to cure Sam Jackson of that?

Thanks for covering this, Ann, when I e-mailed Jessica about it, this was just the commentary (by you) and feedback (in comments) I was interested in! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

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?

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").

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?

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

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.

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.

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!).

"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."

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)

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?

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)

Not that anyone cares, but I thought that the movie looked neat and you can read my opinion on it here.
www.painfulreminder.blogspot.com

after carefully reading all 73 comments I'm gonna have to say I still think I got the right idea.

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

frog queen -
Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Megan, thanks for that link. That was pretty awesome.

"That's a good little half-naked white boy."

Hehehehe. I heart Rainn Wilson.