I hate Quentin, I truly do. And I don't know how many times I've heard someone say, "Well, [his misogynist character] gets his in the end."

As if that makes it ok. He and his little buddy Eli Roth have made a career out of making violence against women sexy. They like girls, they like violence so naturally they put it together.

Also, his delusions of grandeur are incredibly annoying. He made a pointless, outrageous, disgusting movie (deliberately intended to be that way) and that's fine but why must he pretend it's some great cinematic achievement?

Perhaps, in response, feminists should demand an "I Spit On Your Grave" action figure... of Jennifer Hill, not the four rapists.

And to be clear, while ISOYG certainly shows women as powerful (after horrifying repeated gang rapes), I don't recommend you see it.

why must he pretend it's some great cinematic achievement?

Because it is.

The social commentary of certain film makers requires a particular brand of a sense of irony. Not to say you don't have a well developed sense of irony, or that you're not an intelligent movie goer, because you probably do and probably are.

You can be an intelligent movie watcher, and not like Tarantino. But you can also be an intelligent movie watcher and a die-hard proponent of feminism and think he's amazing.

I'm guessing those commenting about this figure don't know much about this film, since the movie in which this character appears is not directed by Quentin Tarantino (which isn't to imply that he wasn't proximal to it, since he's obviously the actor, but at least know where you're pointing your finger.)

The conclusion of the second film of the Grindhouse series essentially features three women beating an ultra misogynist-Kurt Russell character into oblivion.

To call Quentin Tarantino a misogynist is to miss the point of his work, and is much more a projection of your own expectations onto his work than its actual contents. Feminism has enough enemies without trying to recruit more.

Let me add that I certainly don't advocate the selling of this at Toys'R'Us.

I think mature people should be able to enjoy mature things (and for those of us that watch Tarantino the way some drink good wine, that's a legit statement.)

That said, not even this Tarantino-apologist can condone selling this thing to people who, by virtue of their cognitive development, don't have a chance at processing this in a way that doesn't promote hatred towards women or glorify rape.

I hear from my gal Amanda, who I trust, that the movie is very pro-feminist. I haven't seen it so I have no idea what the story is, but I do know that selling a rape doll in toys r us is fucking nasty.

The action figures for slasher movies and the like generally end up at places like Hot Topic and comic shops, not Toys R Us. It would be inappropriate for a toy store to stock the product, but I don't think making it in the first place is inappropriate. There are toys for grownups too.

I'm not sure where you got the information that this figure would be sold at ToysRUs? It's made by NECA for people specifically over 18 (as far as I know) and their figures are rarely, if ever, sold at R Us. Plus, have you seen the movie? While feministing is usually on the ball, you're pretty off base on this one.

Liz, follow the links and you'll see where I got the info. I wasn't sure it was accurate info either, which is why I mentioned what Garance said. And if you'll see my above comment, you'll see I'm not arguing that there's something wrong with the movie. So chill.

Recently on one of the XM Radio stations Tarantino was asked about his strong female characters. He responded that he makes a conscious effort to have strong female leads in his films. It was just that his first 2 films were about a bunch of gangsters - who were a bunch of guys.

In particular, Jackie Brown has a strong female protagonist who really is the center of the entire film. However, I don't know how much can be read into his films generally. Tarantino seems to be obsessed with style over message. Not that style and archetypical genre can't be pretty to look at on film.

Ummm...I guess they have to find some way to make up for the film's losses, and what better way to do it than with dolls that are sold right next to the My Little Ponys. That's the demographic Tarantino should be going for, anyway.

Does Tarantino have a history of trivializing rape? I haven't seen his complete oeuvre, but it seems hard to read the sexual violence in Kill Bill as anything other than intended to instill horror in the viewer: the narrative structure presents it on the same level as being buried alive.

And there is simply no way a doll called "rapist" anything is going to be sold in toy stores. Whoever reported that just plain got it wrong.

I honestly don't care if the doll is going to be sold in Toys R Us or not; I don't like the fact that it's going to be sold anywhere. I very strongly dislike the fact that they've made any kind of collectable or toy of a misogynist character so that young white guys (let's be honest: that's the demographic for the film) can show it off to their friends. I haven't seen the film and I don't intend to, because I have negative interest in horror films. If, however, it really does have some kind of feminist message like some are claiming, this form of marketing really, really underminds it.

They didn't just make a collectible or toy of a misogynist character. They made a collectible or toy of a misogynist character that has his genitals melted off (it's pretty gross) as he tries to rape someone who is so much more bad ass than he is.

Women are strong, and being an asshole alpha male gets your balls melted by the poison gas you were trying to use to take over the world. That's not a terrible message to be sending to the world, is it?

If all asshole alpha males knew they'd get their balls melted off by their own means of violence, we wouldn't have any more wars ever again!

Actually, I know a lot about the film, Garrett. And my point was, it is completely irrelevant in Tarentino's half of the movie, Deathproof, whether or not Kurt Russell gets his misogynist ass kicked or not. "The point of his work" in my opinion is extremely overrated. And in regards to feminism, he and many of his fans view those themes as empowering women, but this only ever comes after they have been victimized, and the victimization is inevitably juxtaposed with sex.

I liked Reservoir Dogs, actually. I thought it was entertaining, the dialogue was interesting. I'm sure the same applies to Pulp Fiction. That doesn't make it high art.

Also, you misunderstand feminism if you really think it's about "asshole alpha males" getting their genitals mutilated.

Quentin Tarantino just gets more psychotic every year. I wish people would just shun his movies so he would fade away.

lilaeiden:

I'm fine if you don't like Tarantino, if you find him overrated, etc. Plenty of intelligent, thoughtful folks love and hate his stuff. My wife and I, both proud feminists, think he rocks. You don't. That's cool.

Believe me, I agree with you wholeheartedly, based at least on Hostel, that Eli Roth is a hack. I didn't find anything redeeming about that film, and probably won't waste my time with any more of his stuff.

I'm not sure I understand your point above about Tarantino's empowerment of women always being in the context of violent or sexual victimization. Not that you don't have a point, just that I don't see what it is.

Aren't women victims of violence to some degree because perpetrators of violence are disgusting folks who underestimate the ability of their victims to be strong in physical, emotional, and sociolegal senses? Because perpetrators perceive a sick entitlement to power? That's, of course, an amazing over-simplification. But, within the vocabulary of filmmaking Tarantino uses, I'm not certain I understand what you're saying he's really doing wrong.

I strongly suspect that the only reason this doll is manufactured is because this is Tarantino's highest-profile cameo, outside of that silly vampire movie, and people wanted a Quentin Tarantino figure. "Rapist Number One" is an unfortunate name for the figure, though, and I'm not sure I like the idea of "Rapist Number One" figures flying off the shelves. They should have just made up a name for the guy.

Cheers,

TH

I feel like the only thought behind this toy was to make an action figure of Quentin Tarantino, not so much the actual character he played. Just a guess, really, I have no way of knowing. But clearly not much consideration was given to the implications of that character being a(n attempted) rapist.

The only Tarantino movie I've ever seen is Pulp Fiction. I liked it okay. Not in my top ten movies or anything, but I didn't particularly dislike it. It has some pretty cool scenes I enjoyed, it was interesting, etc.

So I'm no Tarantino expert -- I'm not an avid fan, not a hater. Pretty neutral, without a lot of info about him.

But I did want to sort of take minor issue with liladen's statement about "high art." I'm not sure if there's really a good way to categorize "high art" -- much of what we think of as "high art" was in fact just artwork for hire. It's capitalist art. Perhaps you meant something different, but I just wanted to add my two cents' worth that there's no "real" definition of what qualifies or doesn't qualify as "high art." To one person, Jackson Pollack created high art. To another person, Andy Warhol. To another, Da Vinci. To another, hell, Ridley Scott. I'm not sure that we can categorically rule out very much as not being "high art."

I don't want to speak for lilaeiden, but from my perspective of her argument (and as I myself would argue) the problem is that the women in his films are victims first. Sure, they get back at their abusers/rapists/oppressors, but only AFTER being abused, raped and oppressed. Of course these are things that happen to an enormous number of women. However, it would be nice to show female characters outside of this realm of victimhood. Women aren't te agressors in these situations, they're just vengeful. And I don't really think that vengance can take feminism very far.

Looks like TH beat me to my thought.

I think doublefantasy has a good point. But I also think Jackie Brown is an exception, and a pretty unfairly overlooked movie in my opinion. Pam Grier's character in that movie is probably Tarantino's strongest (in both the empowerment and well-written sense), and it's also a great subversion of the kind of exploitative roles she played back in all her big movies of the 70s.

Ten films or TV shows I didn't like all that much, but that I really expected to like:

1. The Sopranos

2. The Vagina Monologues

3. This Film is Not Yet Rated

4. The Tudors

5. The Godfather

6. A Fish Called Wanda

7. Oz

8. Blazing Saddles

9. 24 and...

10. Insert any Quentin Tarantino film here. I love the dialogue (Tarantino can write dialogue like nobody else), but I've never been able to sit through one.

Cheers,

TH

I think the big question here is "is art imitating life?" Most of Tarentino's films show messy people (racist, sexist, homophobic, violent, etc) and typically those messy people get screwed (pardon the pun) by the end of the flick. So, is Tarentino showing us what we look like... or is he condoning the mess?

I still love Tarrantino movies and I actually go out to watch them before making stupid remarks that come out of nowhere about how anti-feminist he is. That there is a load of bullshit. His movies are works of art that have stood the test of time, I've never met a person that watched a Tarantino movie and didn't like it.

btw- the second movie in Grindhouse is has extremely feminist overtones, maybe you should go watch it.

lilaeden: Also, you misunderstand feminism if you really think it's about "asshole alpha males" getting their genitals mutilated.

I think it's a perfectly feminist thing to believe that there are consequences to actions against women. I just happen to think there's some wonderful poetic justice to the above imagery.

I certainly don't question your understanding of feminism, and I'd appreciate similar courtesy.

doublefantasy: Women aren't the aggressors in these situations, they're just vengeful. And I don't really think that vengeance can take feminism very far.

Fair point, although I think the characters in Death Proof are obviously strong folks before they're assaulted. Even in Kill Bill, the female lead was pretty amazingly strong before her two-film tirade of vengeance.

That there is a load of bullshit. His movies are works of art that have stood the test of time, I've never met a person that watched a Tarantino movie and didn't like it.

1. His oldest work is barely two decades old, and most of his work is around a decade or less. I'd hardly say that it's "stood the test of time" yet.
2. I know tons of people who don't like him. Personally, I think he's an over-rated hack.

It's entirely possible to make something that is outstanding for what it is, but still be a sexist ass.

Grand Theft Auto is an amazing game that made massive waves in the gaming world. There are some amazing aspects to the game mechanics and the effects it had on the gaming community are still felt today.
It's also a piece of sexist, racist, homophobic trash, imo, and I can't play it anymore.

I don't like QT very much, and think his movies are seriously over-rated, so I don't think I know enough about him or his movies to say whether his portrayal of women is good or bad, but the fact that some people might think he's an amazing film-maker doesn't tell us anything about whether he's a sexist misogynist or not.

I've loved QT films in the past. Loved Reservoir Dogs. Loved Pulp Fiction.

HATED Kill Bill with a fiery passion. Feminist undertones? Whatevs. I thought it was a crappy movie and the emperor was bare-ass naked. As a matter of fact, I think QT was sitting around with a bunch of buddies, and he said, "I'm going to make the worst movie known to man. It's going to be, like, Plan Nine horrible. Really bad. But I'm going to put my name on it, and I'm going to call it an homage, and folks are going to eat it up." And his buddies were all, "Nah. No way, man." And he was all, "A thousand bucks a piece, man. I'll bet you money on it." And now he's rolling around on a pile of cash and laughing.

So there you go, Lindsay PW! Yo now know a person who watched a QT film and thought it was absolute crap.

Keep in mind also that women aren't the only bodies being raped in Tarantino films...do you remember what happened to Marcellus Wallace (for those of you who didn't, he was a black male character, who also got back at his oppressor after he was raped...with a "pair of pliers and a blowtorch")?

I don't understand why no one has commented on the thought that these toys are supposedly marketed to adults as opposed to children. I don't care who they are marketed too - having "rapist" and "toy figurine" together is NOT ok for ANYONE. Rape is NOT funny and should not be commercialized as such. Be it to "adults" or anyone else.

I don't think his movies pretend to be socially responsible.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with that.

There is a time and place for everything.

South Park is sometimes funny even though it isn't socially responsible.

Kate: I don't think making an action figure of a character in a movie condones that character's actions or makes light of them. Toys are just... toys. They don't carry an inherent message.

The existence of Darth Vader action figures doesn't condone genocide any more than the actions of the character in the movies do.

Of course, my pithy comment #33 is that he's playing that character in Robert Rodriguez's segment (Planet Terror) of the movie. I only mention this because a CTRL-F search of the page didn't turn up the name "Robert."

I've never met a person that watched a Tarantino movie and didn't like it.

Hi, I'm EG. Nice to meet you. I was very excited for Kill Bill. Psyched.

And then I saw it, and I was bored. To tears. There wasn't one decent fight scene in it, because Tarantino had to show off all his jump-cutting, in part, no doubt, to disguise the fact that despite his killer crush on Uma Thurman, the woman is no Michelle Yeoh, and can't really fight. I was bored, I was a little grossed out, and I really didn't care one way or the other what happened.

I also think the movie was sexist, in the "Oh, look at the pretty girls catfighting, isn't that empowering" way.

Toys are just... toys. They don't carry an inherent message.

I don't know that I could disagree more. Toys are not "just toys," and they can most certainly carry a message. They can be exploitative, sexist, racist, etc. Toys don't get a pass just because they're toys, any more than a movie gets a pass because it's "just a movie."

I just want to clarify a few things. I wasn't talking about "high art" as some objective thing, I was just criticizing Tarentino for what (I perceive to be) his pretentiousness.

My objection to Tarentino is a personal one and has a lot to do with his personality not just his movies. And in regard to Eli Roth, his movie Hostel was far more offensive to me (personally) than any of Tarentino's films. But that was a movie that received a great stamp of approval from Tarentino, and those two appeared in interviews together and are just very in love with themselves. That's the only reason I included him in my original comment. But he *is* a little weasel, IMO, and I put him in the same class. I still argue that Hostel and some of Tarentino's movies showcase the same attitude that hot chicks are great, stylized violence is great, let's put it together and the result is sexy violence.

And when I said "you misunderstand feminism" I should have said, "my own personal brand of feminism" but God, do I need to qualify every comment I say so that it doesn't seem to be offensive to your perspective? I assumed it was understood.

And though this back and forth has been lovely, GS, I have a paper to write.

First off, I love horror movies and most of Tarantino's repertoire.
That said, I am pretty sensitive to misogyny in films…. I just can’t keep my mouth shut about it (which I would consider a good thing). I saw grindhouse and I really liked it. I left the theater with the sense that the women in the film were, of course, attractive, but that wasn’t the only reason for their presence.

However, I am going to agree with TH on this one. I get the feeling that Tarantino has a pretty enormous ego (hence casting himself in everything he gets his hands on). So making a doll of himself is probably just an extension of that ego. He is in the second movie also, though, as a bartender. So why not make a bartender doll? Because rape sells. And there is the problem. Regardless of how I feel about the movie, there is still a HUGE problem with selling a doll called “Rapist Number One.� Sure, he gets his comeuppance, but they are still capitalizing of the fetishization of rape. I think it is intended to be kind of funny, but as well all can agree, rape is absolutely not funny.

I would be interested to know exactly who is responsible for this doll. Was it Tarantino’s idea, or the people who are distributing the film? Cross marketing is a big deal with movies, so it makes me wonder.

Count me in as another person who doesn't like his movies. I can't stand him as a person, and I hate his movies. I walked out of Pulp Fiction partway through-because strangely-I don't enjoy watching people being tortured. I know, I know, that makes me a weirdo.

I saw him on the David Spade show the other night and he seemed like a sexist piggy to me...

Has anyone seen the cover of Rolling Stone? If so, please explain to me how two naked women with ammo draped over their breasts = feminism? How's that again?

QT is a little boy who likes violence and likes boobies. So he makes movies about violence and boobies. He's also got one hell of an ego. Yuck.

And-"works of art that have stood the test of time"- Uh, what time? I saw Pulp Fiction in college-it wasn't THAT long ago. Works of art? Huh? All I saw was a bunch of lameass posers trying to look cool while they either beat someone up, or got beat up, or shot at someone, or got shot. Not interesting.

I think QT was sitting around with a bunch of buddies, and he said...

Actually, it was Uma Thurman.

Data point, is all.

I would also like to add that Eli Roth is a pretty disgusting mysogynist in my books....event the trailor he contributed to Grindhouse proved that. Anyone see it? i don't want to describe it because it made me want to vomit.

Frankly, I'm iffy on Tarantino. I do like some parts of his movies, but it usually has more to do with the actors than the subject matter. Case in point, the Kill Bill films. And I disagree with TH re: dialouge. "You performing a coup d'etat on me by popping a cap in my ass" is a line that took me completely out of the movie and just made me go "WHAT?!? Who the fuck talks like that?!?"

Feelings on the man himself aside, I don't feel comfortable with this doll being sold to adults or children. Yes the character in the film gets his genitals melted off and that's great, but Tarantino's audience tends to be young white males, many of whom are susceptible to misogynistic ideas. I don't think they'd buy this because the nasty rapist got his in the end, they'd be it because it was Tarantino as "Rapist Number One" and they thought that was bad ass. But there are toy manufacturers that sell collections of figurines depicting serial killers (true, one of them features serial killers across history like Attila the Hun and Ezrabet Bathory) so I suppose this isn't any worse than that.

Gonna jump in here.

I am a QT fan, have been since I saw Pulp Fiction in 94 and later RD. I like his work and I like his passion for film. Sometimes he hits, sometimes he misses. Every director does that. Yes, he has an ego. So do a lot of people in Hollywood.

I've seen Grindhouse and I really enjoyed Planet Terror, which is the film where Rapist Number One appears. I get why women would be upset with this however, and I don't want to bring up the "get a sense of humor thing" about this but I feel I have to; it's a joke. The character really is called Rapist Number One (there's a Rapist Number Two who just gets killed) and this title used to be a staple in exploitation films of the past, which is the genre they're paying homage to. There are lots of films from the 70s and 80s where the character, who is a rapist, is simply called "rapist" Keanu Reeves played "Tall Rapist" in one of his earlier films (he joked about it on True Hollywood story or something like that). They could have given the character a name (I was honestly expecting them to) but they went with this as a wink and nod to the films they loved.

I know this doesn't comfort a lot of women on this thread and if they're selling this at Toys R Us then that is wrong. These toys, much like Todd McFarlane toys and those lines are for ADULTS. As an Adult I have every right to go to Hot Topic and buy QT 's doll. I have no desire for the doll but really I see no difference between owning OT's doll and owning a Freddy Kruger doll, who was a child molester and murder. It's a DOLL.

In the film there is no actual rape, it's implied that it's going to happen and then he dies a very horrible death pretty much at the hand of his intended victim. And for those of you who have no intention of seeing the film and yet feel the need to talk about it none the less, go read Amanda Marcottee's (sp) review over at Pandagon. She breaks it down rather nicely on why QT had to straddle that line of making his women victims before they could take revenge which again is another aspect of the exploitation films that they are recreating.

As far as Eli Roth, I too think he's a hack who has severe mental issues with violence period, not just violence against women. And here's a warning: Hostel 2 has a group full of women this time.

I very strongly dislike the fact that they've made any kind of collectable or toy of a misogynist character so that young white guys (let's be honest: that's the demographic for the film) can show it off to their friends. I haven't seen the film and I don't intend to, because I have negative interest in horror films.

For whatever reason I resent this statement. I am a black woman who has always loved horror films and I am a toy collector. You're dissing an entire genre that you know very little about. Horror films have often had the biggest feminist message, from Alien and Aliens and even those that played along the virgin/whore dichotomy (again, done for a REASON, read the review on Pandagon). There are plenty of people besides white men who enjoy horror films.

I have a 12" Predator collectible. I put it in my office. Thus far it hasn't inspired anyone to go off and skin a bunch of fellow human beings.

I don't want to speak for lilaeiden, but from my perspective of her argument (and as I myself would argue) the problem is that the women in his films are victims first. Sure, they get back at their abusers/rapists/oppressors, but only AFTER being abused, raped and oppressed.

This, hands down, is the most frustrating thing about Tarantino being so popular. Only a fraction of his audience gets the reference points. The woman-gets-revenge plot is one of the top 3 faves in the exploitation circuit that QT's movies reference endlessly. And it's always fucking shitty, because the movies dwell on the rape and torture and not on the revenge. You *want* those revenge movies to be pro-woman, but they aren't.

So QT remakes them so they are. But if you don't get the allusion, it probably makes no sense at all.

Genny, if we dumb down everything in society to make sure that willfully ignorant misogynists don't get a giggle, then we're the ones who lose, not them.

I too am a female horror junkie, UltraMagnus, and while I also resent that statement, we are in the minority. My husband and I we trying to get a group together to go and most the guys were in but none of their wives.

I am going to go read the Pandagon review now.
Pajiba also has a good one.

UltraMagnus, I'm sorry that you're offended by my comments but I stand by them. I wasn't saying that Women, Blacks,H ispanics, etc don't like horror films: I said that they weren't the target demographic. And they're not. I like plenty of things that I'm not the primary demographic for and that are not particularly feminist. Just because I like something does not mean that it was intended for me.

Also, I was not insulting the genre. I said that I had "negative interest" in it. By "negative interest" I meant "so little interest that it is less than zero." No, I have not seen nearly as many horror films as you have-- I've only seen around 10. I don't like them because I don't like violence, I get scared easily, and I greatly prefer character driven plots to action driven plots. That's all.

And I still really, really hate the toy. Selling it in Hot Topic or Spencers is not any better. And I think that it is arguably much worse than selling a Jason or Freddy Kreuger action figure. Why? Because no one has severy been attacked by Freddy Kreuger in real life. Exceedingly few people have been attacked by psychos in hockey masks. But approximately one in three women has been or will be sexually assaulted. The women who have been raped or know someone who has been raped are most likely not going to see the action figure sitting on a shelf and say "oh, how funny" or "hey, it's an action figure from some movie" but "oh my god, there's a fucking action figure of a RAPIST. People are going to buy the rapist and keep it on their shelf at home like a G.I. Joe." It's not funny, it's not cool, it's not about a movie and it's not a fantasy, like Predator or Alien is. Rapists are real, and they attack real women who shop in those stores every day.

And Amanda, in my comments about women seeking revenge, I was not referring only to Grindhouse (especially since I haven't seen it and can only go off of what I've heard) but also Kill Bill. I didn't think that movie was a parody of a genre, but I could be wrong about that.

Amanda, I'm not suggesting that the doll can't be sold, I just think that the (very well reasoned) points people have made on here as to how the fate of the rapist should impact our view of the doll aren't going to be the same thoughts of most people buying the doll. However, if QT and company think there's a market for it then that's what they think and it's up to the consumers to decide if they're right.

Still, I'd think twice about a man if I saw this displayed in his house. You know, if he hadn't taken a lighter to the crotch to keep it true to the movie. Cause then we'd be cool.

Has anyone seen the cover of Rolling Stone? If so, please explain to me how two naked women with ammo draped over their breasts = feminism? How's that again?

Did someone argue that it was? Or is there a possibility (see Jessica's book) that marketing and content might differ some?

You would be wrong on that, double. It's an homage to the endless number of martial arts films where the hero goes on a vengance-filled rampage, usually after having his entire family killed. Or, I've seen a couple where women rampage after getting raped. QT made that movie but decided to put a woman up front, which no doubt further the cause of misogyny by expanding women's roles in Hollywood.

And making a doll of the character is pretty much exactly like making of Freddy Krueger. It helps to see the movie---he's a burbling monster in the movie, no more different than Kruger, except way, way dumber.

You would be wrong on that, double. It's an homage to the endless number of martial arts films where the hero goes on a vengance-filled rampage, usually after having his entire family killed. Or, I've seen a couple where women rampage after getting raped. QT made that movie but decided to put a woman up front, which no doubt further the cause of misogyny by expanding women's roles in Hollywood.

And making a doll of the character is pretty much exactly like making of Freddy Krueger. It helps to see the movie---he's a burbling monster in the movie, no more different than Kruger, except way, way dumber.

The women who have been raped or know someone who has been raped are most likely not going to see the action figure sitting on a shelf and say "oh, how funny" or "hey, it's an action figure from some movie" but "oh my god, there's a fucking action figure of a RAPIST. People are going to buy the rapist and keep it on their shelf at home like a G.I. Joe."

I'm a survivor, and nope, I don't think that. Please don't assume we're broken and lose our ability to engage in the world because we've been assaulted.

You seem slightly hostile, Amanda. Again, I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I was wrong about Kill Bill, apparently, and I said that I might be. So there you go.

And I didn't say that anyone who has been assaulted had lost their ability to engage in the world. I said that they were less likely to think that the doll is "cute." I don't think that anyone should think the doll is cute, rape survivor or not. If you see nothing wrong with the doll, fine. I strongly disagree with you. And whether you like it or not, people are going to see the doll out of context. I'm not judging the movie or the character, I'm judging the marketing, and that is exactly what other people who view the doll out of context are going judge as well. It may not be fair, but it's a reality and I don't think that it's right to dismiss it.

I'm sorry for offending you in whatever way your sarcasm inidcates that I have. It certainly wasn't personal-- in fact, I generally agree with you, so I'm sorry that we had to have this kind of exchange.

And making a doll of the character is pretty much exactly like making of Freddy Krueger. It helps to see the movie---he's a burbling monster in the movie, no more different than Kruger, except way, way dumber.

Thanks Amanda, great review of the film btw.

I have not been a victim of assualt but I do have a very close friend who was and we saw this together. Sitting in the theatre she leaned over and told me "I bet his name is Rapist Number One," and I told her that couldn't be but we watched the end credits and sure enough it was. She laughed and gave me my "I told you so" and she loved the film. She wasn't offended by it and later on when we were in Hot Topic we saw the Grindhouse merchandise with QTs doll and again she joked about the Rapist Number One. She didn't get upset or freaked out.

I can't speak for any victim of assault really but aside from this doll being sold in Toys R. Us I don't understand the fuss over the dolls existence. People have been murdered in horrible ways doublefantasy. The Zodiac killer wore a headmask as did Ed Gein. There are several Texas Chainsaw Massacre toys (which was based around the Ed Gein murders) and people don't get upset about that.

As a woman I do have to worry about assault not having this doll on a shelf isn't going to make me feel safer. Just because we don't make dolls from horror films doesn't mean violence is going to stop.

You seem slightly hostile, Amanda.

It's true. I'm an embittered, humorless, angry, hairy-legged, man-hating feminist.

I'm judging the marketing, and that is exactly what other people who view the doll out of context are going judge as well. It may not be fair, but it's a reality and I don't think that it's right to dismiss it.

I'm not dismissing it. I just don't think that life should be watered down for the morons out there. It's a constant, non-stop struggle if you're out there creating whatever---tons of people will misinterpret what you do. As a blogger, they'll do it pretty much immediately in your comments and piss you off endlessly. The day you say, "You know what? I'm going to quit trying to make sure that everything I do is stupid-proof, because it's making me insipid," is the day you are free. I don't think it's wise to demand that people tip-toe around afraid of what the morons might think. Nothing is gained by that and so much is lost.

And I think that it is arguably much worse than selling a Jason or Freddy Kreuger action figure. Why? Because no one has severy been attacked by Freddy Kreuger in real life.

But there are plenty of people who were molested as kids, which was the kind of monster he was. Not having his doll isn't going to stop child molestation.

As for this:

And whether you like it or not, people are going to see the doll out of context. I'm not judging the movie or the character, I'm judging the marketing, and that is exactly what other people who view the doll out of context are going judge as well.

I like how you speak for the general poplation at large, knowing exactly how they're going to think.

If that's the case then we should all just sit in nice white rooms and stop thinking because out of 33 million people if ONE person takes this doll out of context then the rest of us should be held accountable for it.

Genny:

Still, I'd think twice about a man if I saw this displayed in his house.

What if he had the entire collection of figures from the film? And I find this off setting because men are perfectly capable of rape without the inspiration of a doll. You can go into a guy's house who doesn't have the doll and be raped.

Of course getting rid of the doll isn't going to stop violence, and I never suggested that it would. But it would make me feel like I lived in a world with fewer assholes. Just because there violence exists doesn't mean we have to make toys that remind us of it. I think glamorizing any violence is a bad thing-- again, I don't like horror movies, and that's part of the reason. I think that there is a lot of needless suffering in the world, and we not need to put it on a screen to eat popcorn in front of. But that's a personal opinion that really has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. The point I was getting to is that I don't think the Texas Chainsaw Massacre figurines are cute either. And if Jessica had put up a post about that, I would have commented similarly.

I seem to be alone in my point of view, here, except for Jessica, since she posted this. I'm pretty surprised by that, but oh well, what are you going to do?

And sorry for the first comment. I'm just amused---I'm usually told I'm "hostile" by sexist men.

Sorry if I sound perturbed and sarcastic. I just think it would be a huge fucking shame to have smart, feminist-minded people get so caught up in the knee-jerk reaction to the word "rape" that they don't stop to value what Tarantino and Rodriguez have brought to the table in terms of putting out a movie that basically blows away, like fluff, all these stereotypes of how some movies are for dudes and some are for chicks. This movie is a horror-action film that has only ONE major good guy character out of 10 that is male. And all the press about what a "failure" this movie is has something to do with that, in my view. QT (and in this case Rodriguez) are breaking with convention and giving their best roles to women.

Plus, the movie couldn't be more anti-rape if it had big flashing signs that said, "RAPE IS BAD." Action figures for cult movies are not purchased by people who haven't seen the movie, so the fear of what people will make of the doll is way, way overblown. People who have seen the movie will know he's the worst kind of bad guy and people who haven't will just assume he's a character and probably won't think much of it. No one will get raped because of this doll. On the other hand, a lot of people who see this movie will get a subtle dose of the message that women can be strong, tomboys are cool, men who control their wives deserve to die, and lesbians can be heroes.

Right on Amanda. You said it so much better than me.

Just because there violence exists doesn't mean we have to make toys that remind us of it.

Or plays or movies for that matter. (Hides copy of Shakespeare's collected works.)

Apology accepted :)

I definitely agree that only fans of the movie will buy the doll and that no one will be raped because of the doll. I just really hate to see rape get into the mainstream WITHOUT that big, flashing sign. And while the movie might have it, the doll doesn't. I'd probably appreciate or at least respect the doll's existance a lot more if its genitals were melted, like they apparently are in the movie, or if he was otherwise injured, because that would be a big flashing sign.

And I will take your word on the content of the film itself. I did read your review. I'm way too squemish to actually see it!

Just because there violence exists doesn't mean we have to make toys that remind us of it.

Or plays or movies for that matter. (Hides copy of Shakespeare's collected works.)

Again, agree with Amanda. At that point we just stop making entertainment altogether, though that WOULD mean that the Bible is one of the first things to go.

Also, I'm hearing reports that this toy, because it isn't intended for kids, actually ISN'T for sale at Toys R. Us and that this was just a rumor. It's over at the best week ever blog which also reported it and a lot of people are calling this out saying it's not true. So that's good if it is true (that it's not really being sold).

I just really hate to see rape get into the mainstream WITHOUT that big, flashing sign. And while the movie might have it, the doll doesn't.

Look, these dolls are sold to fans of the movies. You see the movie, you like it, you buy the doll.

And the idea that wiping something out from mention helps strikes me as nonsensical. Isn't that the theory behind abstinence-only, that if you just don't talk about sex, they won't get any ideas?

The taboo around the word "rape" is a major reason the crime is covered up so easily. I wish more people called rapists by what they are.

I don't think that we shouldn't be able to mention rape or and I don't have anything against the word. That's not the point I was trying to get across. We should definitely call rape what it is and call rapists what they are and not tip toe around it-- in fact, I think that we need to talk about rape A LOT more in the mainstream. But we should speak about it in a serious manner and without any ambiguity what so ever that rape is wrong, wrong, wrong. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of idiots in the world who don't spend a lot of time on feminist websites and don't GET what is so wrong about rape. Those are the people who make me worry about this sort of thing. If everyone was on the same page in their understanding of rape, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Also, plays and movies have a lot more context than toys. At least, that's my opinion.

Also, I'm not suggesting that we pander to idiots. I hate when people pander to idiots. I'm just saying that we need to be aware of societal realities as part of the context of ANY form of art in order to truly understand it and critique it.

Well, I think it's fucking heinous. I don't think trivializing rape is funny at all, or that making it into a joke is amusing. I might not be so bothered by this goddamn doll if there were some compassionate discussion of rape in the entertainment or mainstream media, or discussion of survivors and what we go through, but THIS is what passes for discussion of rape in our society -- glorifying the rapist. I can't even begin to count how many times I've told people I was raped, and they thought it was a big fucking funny joke, or that I was a stupid bitch who deserved it. So great, now those people have even more reason to think rape is funny, and more proof that the rest of the world finds it funny as hell, too. I understand that the movie probably was not like this at all -- I actually like a lot of Tarantino's work -- but what I'm talking about is the action figure, not the movie. It makes me sick.

I very strongly dislike the fact that they've made any kind of collectable or toy of a misogynist character so that young white guys (let's be honest: that's the demographic for the film) can show it off to their friends.

The only people I know who've seen this movie and liked it were women. Just sayin'.

You know, until I read the article, I thought that was supposed to be a Bill O'Reilly doll.

Personally, I think Tarantino is an asshole, but his films are brilliant. And I have to say that I absolutely loved Grindhouse -- an entertaining homage to the double-features of the 60's & 70's... with some kickass lead women. (Though my first thought at the end was "Awesome, but Quentin is still a misogynistic f*ck.")

Ultra I didn't mean the "If I saw this in a guy's house I'd think twice" comment to mean that only men who had this doll are rapists or that all rapists would choose to advertise that fact with a prominently displayed figurine. It was me being lighthearted about the fact that the doll makes me a little uncomfortable, but I'm not really for banning it. See how I followed it with a comment about burning off the crotch with a lighter to mimic the scene in the movie. It was a joke, though apparently not a very good one to make in a discussion this emotionally charged on either side. So, sorry if I was unclear.

DataShade I know one man who loved this movie, my boyfriend (who saw it without me, bastard) thought it was fantastic and can't wait to go see it again with me.

Sorry to jump to conclusions Genny. We get so many of those, "If i saw that in a guy's apartment I'd (fill in blank".

My bad.

You know,

I think the only Quentin Tarantino movie I've seen and liked was "From Dusk Till Dawn". I've seen a few others. I wouldn't call Quentin as promoting a feminist message, though he's certainly not the most anti-feminist film-maker around either

I know "From Dusk Till Dawn" has a couple of scenes of either violence against women or implied violating thoughts, but none of those scenes trivialize the violence. And I love vampires! And I love the fact that the female exotic dancers all turned out to be vampires that ate the misogynistic bikers. And I love the fact that while she came out jaded as all fuck, the young girl was a pretty strong character too.

So yeah, I'm not buying the "feminist" side to his movies, but I think some of his movies are sort of fascinating fantasies with a realistic feel to them.

Actually, I just had an interesting thought.

Is it like... everytime a movie features female characters that show a realistic amount of emotional strength in the face of hardship, the movies wind up getting called "feminist" by a lot of people?

Jeez, Robert Rodriguez can't get any credit around here, since he directed From Dusk Till Dawn.

no way, really? my bad then, I guess I'm /not/ entertained by Tarantino in my experience...

Also, I'm not suggesting that we pander to idiots. I hate when people pander to idiots. I'm just saying that we need to be aware of societal realities as part of the context of ANY form of art in order to truly understand it and critique it.

Well, when it comes to refusing to name characters who commit rape in movies "rapists" for fear of giving guys ideas, I'm afraid that's straight up pandering-to-idiots.

To give poor Rodriguez credit: I thought this movie had the best schlock I've seen in ages. It was pitch perfect ironic-cheesy dialogue.

I realize after the fact that the more layered irony gets in movies, the more we're losing people. But then I remember my mantra of not pandering to idiots and find I don't care.

Actually, I just had an interesting thought.

Is it like... everytime a movie features female characters that show a realistic amount of emotional strength in the face of hardship, the movies wind up getting called "feminist" by a lot of people?

Possibly because there's something more going on that you're ignoring to maintain your dislike of the moviemaker. I wrote an entire fucking review of this movie where I explained in careful detail the intricate way that the second film's characterization, structure, and dialogue offered a feminist counterpoint to exploitation revenge films that do pretend they're feminist just by having "strong" women. But fuck it---QT is a dude who acts kind of like the jovial, egotistical assholes you remember from college, ergo he is a misogynist and we don't need to actually look hard at his work and think about it relation to other movies or anything like that.

Which isn't to say that my review is the end-all of interpretations. But it's simply incorrect to say that someone is equating strong female characters with "feminist". There's a lot going on in movies like these, which don't even make sense without comparisons to other movies. Boiling it down to the characters and whether or not they exhibit "strength" is irritating, but it's also not what people who say this film examines feminists themes are doing. It's not an ideological purity test---it's about something more interesting that shallow yes/no purity issues.

You know, I find myself leaning more and more towards Amanda's POV on this one--though I'm still not really a fan of Tarantino movies, to be honest. Reckon it's just an acquired taste.

But if the main thing people who have seen the movie remember about Rapist Number One is that he threatened a woman and got his genitals melted off, and if this is one of those collectible figurines that's basically just marketed to hardcore fans who have seen the movie, then I'm not sure I see the harm in it.

I think my issue here stems from my discomfort with the word "rapist," but we have serial killers, cannibals, and so on and so forth all over the entertainment industry because they represent our primal fears, and to whatever extent our culture starts seeing rape as a horrific and pervasive and universal part of the human experience rather than as something you read about on the second page of a brochure...

I don't know. Maybe the word "rapist" needs to be used more often in contexts like these, not less. After all, there are many, many, many rapists in these films, and almost none of them are ever named as such because they do gorier stuff in addition to rape.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the idea of movies where we're supposed to go "Oh my God, I hope she doesn't get raped I hope she doesn't get raped I hope she doesn't get raped" because while we're going to be horrified by that, a disturbingly high percentage of men would probably find it titillating, and I would bet a dollar to a donut that the vast majority of people who watch Tarantino movies (strong female characters and all) are men. After all, they are in the final analysis action or horror flicks and those tend to attract predominantly male audiences.

Just once I'd like to see one of these movies explore how it feels to have been raped, and not in some maudlin, sanitized, piano keys tink-tinking in the background kind of way. I'd also like to see a more serious cinematic portrayal of how men become rapists. Because I'm not sure men understand how common that kind of mindset is, even if (and it's an if) the majority of men who have that mindset never act on it.

Cheers,

TH

I wasn't so much knocking QT with that comment, as knocking the industry in general. Because the first female film stars were always terribly weak, and we've just been getting gradually better over time, but an awful lot are still weak.

But please, describe the intricacies you see, b/c I do think I'm still missing them... (and I think the only movies I've seen all the way through by QT are "Kill Bill" 1 & 2 and "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" so those may be poor reference points)

I wasn't so much knocking QT with that comment, as knocking the industry in general. Because the first female film stars were always terribly weak characters, and we've just been getting gradually better over time, but an awful lot are still weak.

But please, describe the intricacies you see, b/c I do think I'm still missing them... (and I think the only movies I've seen all the way through by QT are "Kill Bill" 1 & 2 and "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" so those may be poor reference points)

Oh wait, Once Upon a Time was Rodriguez too. Crap... Well, are the two directors really that different?

"I don't know. Maybe the word "rapist" needs to be used more often in contexts like these, not less. After all, there are many, many, many rapists in these films, and almost none of them are ever named as such because they do gorier stuff in addition to rape."

I think a possible danger here is that the majority of the public already does think "rape" is a horrific theme, but the majority of the public envisions rape as some stranger with a knife jumping out of the bushes at women, and being very overtly violent. When in reality, rape can look subtler and still be violent and traumatic. So if a film wanted to explore the horrificness of say, your standard date-rape situation from both the man's and woman's mindset that might be one thing -but I'm not sure showing the "Rapist Number One" types (or what I'm taking him to be, not having seen the movie) is really changing many people's perceptions

I'm not here to weigh in on the larger controversy - I'll summarize my view by saying that this "toy," like so many others in the "adult toy" industry, is creepy and inappropriate.

But it seems to me that the assertion (in bold, no less) that the doll is being sold in Toys R Us stores across the country is, at best, factually unsupported, and at worst, completely wrong, and that the Feministing editors have a responsibility to correct their item, or at least acknowledge that there's no evidence yet to support the claim.

The Contact Music item offers no sourcing whatsoever.

Perez Hilton - do I even need to offer a critique of the "credibility" of a guy who violates photographers' copyrights and doodles on their pictures with MS Paint in service of "celebrity juice, not from concentrate"? None of us has the time to sit down and track the total number of rumors published on his Web site that turned out to be wrong.

And The Garance even points out that a search for "rapist" on toysrus.com turns up no results. I can add that a search for "Grindhouse" also yields nothing.

Bash BizRate if you want, bash the small companies that are actually selling the doll. But in this case at least, it doesn't seem that Toys R Us deserves your ire.

I'll add that I am not now, nor have I ever been, affiliated with Toys R Us in any way. But if I did work for them, I'd probably suggest to my boss that they get the legal team working on a whole slew of cease & desist letters for Web sites that have made incorrect assertions that have the potential to damage the business' reputation.

First, the toy is clearly not meant for children but collectors, and the choice of producing the "rapist #1" character not for any reason other than because Tarantino acted the role. It's unfortunate if the toy really reaches the shelves of Toys-R-Us, but I'm not particularly disgusted with the doll itself.

I love Tarantino's movies, and while I wouldn't call them "feminist", he does a lot of things right in my mind. Apart from his strong female leads (Jackie Brown is a classic), there's subtle things that many other filmmakers neglect. The Crazy 88 in Kill Bill, a mob of ninjas, had both men and women. The band of refugee survivors in Planet Terror (Rodriguez, but the point holds), had both men and women, a number of the nameless latter looking like average people and wielding guns with competence. Most action/horror movies fall into the "smurfette" syndrome - the female lead against a backdrop of men. If anything, this is equalist (or just realistic) rather than feminist, but comes across pretty good compared with other films.

I think if there's anything with regard to rape to take issue with, it's in Death Proof when - even after the lead girl's speech about how she carries a gun to defend against rapists because she'll do her laundry any time of the night she wants! - they ditch their friend in a cheerleading outfit at the hands of a hillbilly creep, and never resolve it past the lecherous "heh heh heh" "gulp". I felt ill for that girl all through the car chase scenes, hoping they'd cut back to her having kicked his ass, but it never happened. Ugh.

"I just think it would be a huge fucking shame to have smart, feminist-minded people get so caught up in the knee-jerk reaction to the word "rape""

Just an anecdote here: I have not been raped. But my mother was gang raped when I was about 10 months old - about a month before my father was killed by a drunk driver

I was afraid of rape before I had any understanding of sex. I had nightmares about being raped from a young age, including by my father, which developed into a complete distrust of men entering puberty.

I couldn't say the word rape until a few years ago (I'm 22).

If I saw a doll with "Rapist No One" written on it I'd feel physically ill

This doesn't mean I have any great objection to the doll. I think out of context it's fucked up, in context it's OK

I also think QT is a dickhead, but I like some of his movies. I love Reservior Dogs (though I am quite disturbed at anyone being amused by the ear-cutting-off scene as my partner was)

I found Kill Bill boring, and the crap fight scenes really contributed (whether or not it was a "tribute", we see enough crap fight scenes thank you very much)

Overall I'm pretty neutral about QT. But the word rape can be powerful, and I would expect most people on here to realise this

well Fenriswolf,

I absolutely have some understanding of where you're coming from.

And I wouldn't be surprised if for some people who had been raped, seeing this sort of doll with the name could act as a trigger. (a trigger meaning something that would cause them to become sick and have flashbacks)

the first female film stars were always terribly weak characters

That's just not true. Mary Pickford was one of the most powerful women in Hollywood, and in Sparrows, for instance, she was a savior and a leader. Myrna Loy's Nora Charles was gutsy and funny; Lauren Bacall played tough women who held their own against Bogart; Bette Davis's characters were rarely shrinking violets; Marlene Dietrich almost always played hard-boiled women; to say nothing of Mae West.

Actually, I should correct myself: Mary Pickford was one of the most powerful people in Hollywood, men and women included.

oh ew ew ew EW (OP, that is)