Let's visit the past! *G*
Apr. 5th, 2007 07:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
veronica_richI looked back at last July, when I posted my first thoughts of DMC. I'd mentioned recently that I tried very hard to like the movie when it first came out. I was amused by the things I'd changed my mind about since then (for example, deciding my dislike of the events wasn't really the lack of J/W at all, because hey, POTC canon never had it, and I was fine with CotBP), and also by what hasn't changed.
July 7
My sister and I went to see The Movie Sequel tonight. The short version is I haven't figured out just how I feel about this movie yet.
These are *extremely* random thoughts, as it is late and I need to sleep.
Let's just get the first part out of the way. I have never found much attraction in a J/E dynamic. They're too much alike, and they'd never actually last beyond some de-lusting sex. One would eventually have to kill the other and take over the ship, LOL. So this was not my favorite part of the movie. THAT SAID ... I can appreciate the dynamic the writers were perhaps going for. They wanted to do something unexpected and shake things up.
Is it just me, or did this one go out of its way to heterosexualize Jack as much as possible? Just wondering if I'm the only one who saw that, or if I'm just making shit up.
Will getting his own story was quite nice. He gets to meet his father (and we get to see where he gets his "noble" streak!), and I'm right - he does get his eyes from his mother. *G* His whole attitude toward Davy Jones in challenging him, the whole lashing thing up on deck - damn. Our little simple blacksmith has grown up.
Speaking of which - I think Will was PISSED OFF at the end. Sitting there throwing his knife into the table, not saying anything, and then suddenly asking if Elizabeth wanted to find Jack ... ohhhhh, someone's going to get an ass-kicking in the third movie. Thing is, will it be Jack, or Elizabeth? Jack is a pirate, and honestly, Will shouldn't expect anything different. Elizabeth however ... ah, there's the rub. She isn't supposed to do the things Jack does.
I think Barbossa should totally take Elizabeth off Jack's and Will's hands. Now there's a duo that could go places together.
What was up with Jack trading Will for his own soul? I have to admit, that's the only part I'm still having trouble squaring with my Turrow fondness. I know Jack is opportunistic (read above), but was the whole purpose simply to tear down the perception you get of him in the first movie (when you think he's backstabbing, but then he turns into this good man - so is this movie supposed to do the opposite)?
THEN AGAIN - Will *did* show up expecting Jack to just turn over his compass without fully explaining why, and then pulled a sword on the man on his own ship. It could be said Jack was simply giving Will a taste of his own medicine - "Fuck with me, will you, boy? All right, then ..."
They did have a few "moments" though, perhaps the best being Will showing up on the island. "How'd you get here?" "Sea turtles, mate. Strapped one to each foot." "Not as easy as it looks, is it?" *LOVES*
And, as much as the Turrow part of me disliked it, I must admit I snickered when Jack whacked Will with the oar - I leaned over to my sister and muttered, "Payback's a bitch, isn't it?"
I have a pointed question for the Turrow 'shippers on my f-list who get this far: Can you, or can you not work around what's been given you by this new canon? Because ... I sort of think I still can. *G*
More later, I'm sure.
July 10
My sister and I went to see "Dead Man's Chest" again yesterday. I liked this viewing better, because I knew what was going to happen, and I could just sit back and watch technique and execution and such.
Jack, I believe, is nearly everyone's favorite character, and for good reason. He comes across sometimes as clownish upon first viewing, but on the second, he's more astute and simply FRIGHTENED of what's coming for him. I think he's probably being as noble as he can under the circumstances. Put simply, he's fucked and there's no real way out of it beyond never setting foot in the water again - and that's not something Jack can go without.
Will was my favorite character in this movie besides Jack. He almost edged him out in a couple of scenes, eve. And it's not because Will is overly heroic or handsome or noble - it's because he's grown and is more complex than in the first one. Despite everything he knows, everything the tricks he's learned and the shortcuts he could take, when it comes to real people who are in no position to help themselves, he's there to do it. (And, I must confess, I have more faith in Orlando's acting than seemingly many critics. I've always said a simple pretty face doesn't interest me, and it still doesn't.)
Elizabeth ... This one is harder to reconcile. I liked her better in the second viewing, and I think it's because I saw her for what she was. She's used to getting her way from Daddy and probably with Will, used to making demands and having them met, and one cannot simply do that with Jack Sparrow. As someone else pointed out, when she tries to play his own game against him, he flummoxes her by being ready to take advantage of what she's (not) offering. She's not yet old enough, either, to understand that one can desire another person without either (a) acting upon it or (b) feeling guilty about it. Nor does she understand the difference between desire for a person and desire for what that person REPRESENTS; I think what she wants is the freedom and the expanse Jack represents, not necessarily Jack himself (at least not for any length of time). I think the reason she chains him to the ship is twofold: She's wanting to avenge what Jack did to Will by sending him to Davy Jones; and she's trying to remove her own temptation.
Norrington is fabulous. I can't help it - I honestly thought his reaction in the first one was more out of character than here. It's not that he can't be a good man - he TRIED to be a good, upright man, and look where it got him, is his POV. He suffered a great loss, presumably, and is angry, indignant, and scared.
As for pairings - I can't help still seeing more chemistry between Jack and Will than between Jack and Elizabeth. There just aren't enough basic differences between J and E to make that pairing interesting or lasting, in my opinion - I need a little "opposite" in my preferred pairings.
EDIT: Who thinks there is the remotest chance that, like Star Wars, we'll find out that Jack is Luke- er, I mean, Will's, father? Or related in some other way? (Yeah, Will's blood was needed to break the curse, but would Jack's have done as well? We'll never know because of the way the blood was shed.)
July 13
I'm sure someone else somewhere has brought up these two points. But I haven't read them, so I'm going to make them as my own, since I came up with them on my own.
First, I can honestly say I've now squared with the J/E thing in DMC. It was one of those odd, random thoughts you have in the shower somewhere between putting the shampoo in your hand and putting your hands in your hair.
I just had to remember that Jack is not so obvious about what he wants.
Let me repeat that: Jack is not so obvious about what he wants.
Granted, we see nothing going on belowdecks involving Jack and Elizabeth. But we know the place exists, and there's no reason NOT to have a scene belowdecks if that's where it belongs, so we have to assume what happens up on deck out in the open happens there for a reason. Pay attention to how Jack's responses to and seductions of Elizabeth are all up on deck, in the middle of the day, with the crew present.
Part of what I always liked about the J/W dynamic is how Jack wasn't terribly obvious about it. He never is terribly obvious about what he really wants - when searching for the Pearl, he kept his own counsel about *why* he wanted her. As Gibbs told Will, "Jack plays things close to the vest now, and a hard-learned lesson it was." When explaining first to Will, then to Elizabeth, that he wants Davy Jones's key, he says nothing about WHY he needs it, nor does he say just how desperately it's needed - until forced by Will's hand on the beach (and even then, he's still not forthcoming as to the full WHY of it). Why would a man who does such things be so OBVIOUS in public about a woman he truly loves and wants, when he wouldn't even do it for his ship?
A man *would*, however, have no problem publicly swaggering around an attractive female he hopes to bed, which would enhance his reputation. That's something you can see in any bar you walk into, frankly.
Second, while Jack may be a world-class pirate, he's really not a very good captain at all. He knows how to operate a ship; he can probably even teach a new swabbie his skills, one-on-one, learning to get around one. But leading quantities of people on a daily basis doesn't seem his forte. In modern parlance, he's neither an employee nor a manager, but rather, an independent contractor who occasionally has to make use of casual labor to finish his jobs.
I don't think it's that Jack is incapable of being a good manager. I think he doesn't *want* to do it, and that forced to do it for any length of time is boring and taxing and too much like responsible employment ("Somehow, I doubt Jack will find employment the same thing as freedom" - couldn't have put it better myself, young Will). Yes, he wants his ship, but I think he realizes having a crew to run it is more necessary than desirable - if Jack could find a way to be alone on his ship with his rum, Gibbs, a woman now and again, *coughWillcough*, and invisible hands to pull at the oars, he'd be a blissful little pirate.
Ah, the joys of current 'feminism' ...
One of the wonderful things about the women's movement has been that by and large, in this country at least (I'm only American; I can't speak for any other nationality), it's considered just as normal for a young woman to not be a virgin, as it is for a young man. I'm not suggesting that's any great feat to be lauded for either gender; what I'm saying is that the sexual double standard for women isn't rigid like it used to be. In most quarters, I would term sex as a "live and let live" situation for men and women. I would say very few men expect their brides to be pure for the marriage bed, as opposed to what their grandfathers and great-grandfathers might have expected.
Of course, I'm more impressed by the fact women have a chance at all the same careers as men (well, maybe not Calvin Klein male underwear model) - a side effect not only of the women's movement, but long before that, mostly originating in WWII and the need for domestic labor as most of the working-age men went off to war. I experience the benefit of that all the time, by being a journalist.
Someone is going to call me an old prude, but at my age and level of life experience, I've decided I don't really mind what people think of my opinions. I believe I have probably had all I can handle of reading the POV that women ought to be able to use their sexuality to get ahead if they want to, and to try to curtail or discourage such a thing is just oppressive to the female creature.
Pay heed, young girls: As a woman in her mid-30s, I can honestly tell you you will get further in the long run learning to use your brain and your wits, rather than your tits. I would no more teach a daughter of mine to seduce someone to get an interview, a job, or an account, than I would teach a son that wrapping his package in tight pants is the way to gain his business colleagues' and clients' respect. Unlike some people, I don't see this as oppressive to women at all; I view it as liberating, to teach boys and girls alike that using their brains and the full extent of their cleverness to get ahead in life is far superior to getting by on one's appearance or body or ability to suck cock.
Admittedly, sexuality has its place alongside business in a forum where sex IS part of the business - Madonna had no hope of gaining an audience as a performer by standing at a lectern and reading economic theory textbooks. If Johnny Depp didn't swish his hips as often or use his smoldering eyes onscreen, he wouldn't have nearly the success he's enjoyed as a performer. That's not part of my argument.
What nobody wants to tell these girls and women who are all about using their bodies as bargaining chips is the un-P.C. reality that doing so doesn't gain one any real respect. Grandma taught it; Mom taught it. It's one of the few things I'm willing to admit they were both right about.
I once had a beat as a beginning reporter that involved covering a county commission consisting of three men, two of whom were as backwoods and misogynistic as could be. They had zero respect for me when I started going to their meetings, and this lasted for several months, until I proved I was willing to gladly write, repeatedly, whatever it took to show what charlatans they were (factually, of course). The reporter before me, also a woman, covered them for a year or two, and she tried a different tack - admittedly very pretty and leggy, she showed off her legs, flirted with them, and alluded to the promise of more if they would cooperate with her requests for information. Not only did they play games with her the whole time and never cooperate with her, for years after she was gone, it was generally talked about around the courthouse what a slut Judy was and how bad she was at her job - because she chose to negotiate with sex rather than a brain.
That, girls, is reality. You may not be popular if you don't put out in the course of the job, but you DO stand a better chance of getting what it is you really need and garnering respect rather than contempt. Those two commissioners hated me like poison, but they never again failed to respect me after I got them kicked out of office during the next election for reporting habitual misuse of county funds.
I am proud to say that I've never gone into a story or an editorial meeting thinking How can I use my cunt to get ahead? (I have used being a woman as a position from which to draw empathy to write about some other women in human interest stories, but only insofar as it was appropriate that gender may play some relevant role in the story.) I've also worked with a lawyer for the past few years doing research and accounting his office's finances (I'm a freelancer and it supplements my income), and I can honestly say that my ability to shake my tits has never entered into our relationship or helped me balance a budget sheet or find a legal reference. He doesn't pay me more than most other legal assistants around here make on the basis that I'm cute and willing to put out, either - it's because I've worked hard to learn my responsibilities, and no amount of flirting or sucking would've garnered me that education.
Just because the women's movement (finally!) afforded us freedom of sex and the full range of life choices doesn't mean sex has to play into every life choice we make. Just because men WILL stare at your tits doesn't mean you should use them to get ahead in anything other than a personal sexual or romantic relationship. (Same goes for women if you're inclined toward lesbians.) I don't believe learning to meet men in business on terms of brains, talent, chutzpah, and respect is "competing in a man's world" - it's our fault for still using that term. We are now every bit as much a part of that "man's world" and it's a dangerously antiquated phrase that allows for silliness such as "Oh, I can use my sex to get ahead! Squee!" to be seen as genuine empowerment and a replacement for - or supplement to - education, talent, and willingness to learn.
July 7
My sister and I went to see The Movie Sequel tonight. The short version is I haven't figured out just how I feel about this movie yet.
These are *extremely* random thoughts, as it is late and I need to sleep.
Let's just get the first part out of the way. I have never found much attraction in a J/E dynamic. They're too much alike, and they'd never actually last beyond some de-lusting sex. One would eventually have to kill the other and take over the ship, LOL. So this was not my favorite part of the movie. THAT SAID ... I can appreciate the dynamic the writers were perhaps going for. They wanted to do something unexpected and shake things up.
Is it just me, or did this one go out of its way to heterosexualize Jack as much as possible? Just wondering if I'm the only one who saw that, or if I'm just making shit up.
Will getting his own story was quite nice. He gets to meet his father (and we get to see where he gets his "noble" streak!), and I'm right - he does get his eyes from his mother. *G* His whole attitude toward Davy Jones in challenging him, the whole lashing thing up on deck - damn. Our little simple blacksmith has grown up.
Speaking of which - I think Will was PISSED OFF at the end. Sitting there throwing his knife into the table, not saying anything, and then suddenly asking if Elizabeth wanted to find Jack ... ohhhhh, someone's going to get an ass-kicking in the third movie. Thing is, will it be Jack, or Elizabeth? Jack is a pirate, and honestly, Will shouldn't expect anything different. Elizabeth however ... ah, there's the rub. She isn't supposed to do the things Jack does.
I think Barbossa should totally take Elizabeth off Jack's and Will's hands. Now there's a duo that could go places together.
What was up with Jack trading Will for his own soul? I have to admit, that's the only part I'm still having trouble squaring with my Turrow fondness. I know Jack is opportunistic (read above), but was the whole purpose simply to tear down the perception you get of him in the first movie (when you think he's backstabbing, but then he turns into this good man - so is this movie supposed to do the opposite)?
THEN AGAIN - Will *did* show up expecting Jack to just turn over his compass without fully explaining why, and then pulled a sword on the man on his own ship. It could be said Jack was simply giving Will a taste of his own medicine - "Fuck with me, will you, boy? All right, then ..."
They did have a few "moments" though, perhaps the best being Will showing up on the island. "How'd you get here?" "Sea turtles, mate. Strapped one to each foot." "Not as easy as it looks, is it?" *LOVES*
And, as much as the Turrow part of me disliked it, I must admit I snickered when Jack whacked Will with the oar - I leaned over to my sister and muttered, "Payback's a bitch, isn't it?"
I have a pointed question for the Turrow 'shippers on my f-list who get this far: Can you, or can you not work around what's been given you by this new canon? Because ... I sort of think I still can. *G*
More later, I'm sure.
July 10
My sister and I went to see "Dead Man's Chest" again yesterday. I liked this viewing better, because I knew what was going to happen, and I could just sit back and watch technique and execution and such.
Jack, I believe, is nearly everyone's favorite character, and for good reason. He comes across sometimes as clownish upon first viewing, but on the second, he's more astute and simply FRIGHTENED of what's coming for him. I think he's probably being as noble as he can under the circumstances. Put simply, he's fucked and there's no real way out of it beyond never setting foot in the water again - and that's not something Jack can go without.
Will was my favorite character in this movie besides Jack. He almost edged him out in a couple of scenes, eve. And it's not because Will is overly heroic or handsome or noble - it's because he's grown and is more complex than in the first one. Despite everything he knows, everything the tricks he's learned and the shortcuts he could take, when it comes to real people who are in no position to help themselves, he's there to do it. (And, I must confess, I have more faith in Orlando's acting than seemingly many critics. I've always said a simple pretty face doesn't interest me, and it still doesn't.)
Elizabeth ... This one is harder to reconcile. I liked her better in the second viewing, and I think it's because I saw her for what she was. She's used to getting her way from Daddy and probably with Will, used to making demands and having them met, and one cannot simply do that with Jack Sparrow. As someone else pointed out, when she tries to play his own game against him, he flummoxes her by being ready to take advantage of what she's (not) offering. She's not yet old enough, either, to understand that one can desire another person without either (a) acting upon it or (b) feeling guilty about it. Nor does she understand the difference between desire for a person and desire for what that person REPRESENTS; I think what she wants is the freedom and the expanse Jack represents, not necessarily Jack himself (at least not for any length of time). I think the reason she chains him to the ship is twofold: She's wanting to avenge what Jack did to Will by sending him to Davy Jones; and she's trying to remove her own temptation.
Norrington is fabulous. I can't help it - I honestly thought his reaction in the first one was more out of character than here. It's not that he can't be a good man - he TRIED to be a good, upright man, and look where it got him, is his POV. He suffered a great loss, presumably, and is angry, indignant, and scared.
As for pairings - I can't help still seeing more chemistry between Jack and Will than between Jack and Elizabeth. There just aren't enough basic differences between J and E to make that pairing interesting or lasting, in my opinion - I need a little "opposite" in my preferred pairings.
EDIT: Who thinks there is the remotest chance that, like Star Wars, we'll find out that Jack is Luke- er, I mean, Will's, father? Or related in some other way? (Yeah, Will's blood was needed to break the curse, but would Jack's have done as well? We'll never know because of the way the blood was shed.)
July 13
I'm sure someone else somewhere has brought up these two points. But I haven't read them, so I'm going to make them as my own, since I came up with them on my own.
First, I can honestly say I've now squared with the J/E thing in DMC. It was one of those odd, random thoughts you have in the shower somewhere between putting the shampoo in your hand and putting your hands in your hair.
I just had to remember that Jack is not so obvious about what he wants.
Let me repeat that: Jack is not so obvious about what he wants.
Granted, we see nothing going on belowdecks involving Jack and Elizabeth. But we know the place exists, and there's no reason NOT to have a scene belowdecks if that's where it belongs, so we have to assume what happens up on deck out in the open happens there for a reason. Pay attention to how Jack's responses to and seductions of Elizabeth are all up on deck, in the middle of the day, with the crew present.
Part of what I always liked about the J/W dynamic is how Jack wasn't terribly obvious about it. He never is terribly obvious about what he really wants - when searching for the Pearl, he kept his own counsel about *why* he wanted her. As Gibbs told Will, "Jack plays things close to the vest now, and a hard-learned lesson it was." When explaining first to Will, then to Elizabeth, that he wants Davy Jones's key, he says nothing about WHY he needs it, nor does he say just how desperately it's needed - until forced by Will's hand on the beach (and even then, he's still not forthcoming as to the full WHY of it). Why would a man who does such things be so OBVIOUS in public about a woman he truly loves and wants, when he wouldn't even do it for his ship?
A man *would*, however, have no problem publicly swaggering around an attractive female he hopes to bed, which would enhance his reputation. That's something you can see in any bar you walk into, frankly.
Second, while Jack may be a world-class pirate, he's really not a very good captain at all. He knows how to operate a ship; he can probably even teach a new swabbie his skills, one-on-one, learning to get around one. But leading quantities of people on a daily basis doesn't seem his forte. In modern parlance, he's neither an employee nor a manager, but rather, an independent contractor who occasionally has to make use of casual labor to finish his jobs.
I don't think it's that Jack is incapable of being a good manager. I think he doesn't *want* to do it, and that forced to do it for any length of time is boring and taxing and too much like responsible employment ("Somehow, I doubt Jack will find employment the same thing as freedom" - couldn't have put it better myself, young Will). Yes, he wants his ship, but I think he realizes having a crew to run it is more necessary than desirable - if Jack could find a way to be alone on his ship with his rum, Gibbs, a woman now and again, *coughWillcough*, and invisible hands to pull at the oars, he'd be a blissful little pirate.
Ah, the joys of current 'feminism' ...
One of the wonderful things about the women's movement has been that by and large, in this country at least (I'm only American; I can't speak for any other nationality), it's considered just as normal for a young woman to not be a virgin, as it is for a young man. I'm not suggesting that's any great feat to be lauded for either gender; what I'm saying is that the sexual double standard for women isn't rigid like it used to be. In most quarters, I would term sex as a "live and let live" situation for men and women. I would say very few men expect their brides to be pure for the marriage bed, as opposed to what their grandfathers and great-grandfathers might have expected.
Of course, I'm more impressed by the fact women have a chance at all the same careers as men (well, maybe not Calvin Klein male underwear model) - a side effect not only of the women's movement, but long before that, mostly originating in WWII and the need for domestic labor as most of the working-age men went off to war. I experience the benefit of that all the time, by being a journalist.
Someone is going to call me an old prude, but at my age and level of life experience, I've decided I don't really mind what people think of my opinions. I believe I have probably had all I can handle of reading the POV that women ought to be able to use their sexuality to get ahead if they want to, and to try to curtail or discourage such a thing is just oppressive to the female creature.
Pay heed, young girls: As a woman in her mid-30s, I can honestly tell you you will get further in the long run learning to use your brain and your wits, rather than your tits. I would no more teach a daughter of mine to seduce someone to get an interview, a job, or an account, than I would teach a son that wrapping his package in tight pants is the way to gain his business colleagues' and clients' respect. Unlike some people, I don't see this as oppressive to women at all; I view it as liberating, to teach boys and girls alike that using their brains and the full extent of their cleverness to get ahead in life is far superior to getting by on one's appearance or body or ability to suck cock.
Admittedly, sexuality has its place alongside business in a forum where sex IS part of the business - Madonna had no hope of gaining an audience as a performer by standing at a lectern and reading economic theory textbooks. If Johnny Depp didn't swish his hips as often or use his smoldering eyes onscreen, he wouldn't have nearly the success he's enjoyed as a performer. That's not part of my argument.
What nobody wants to tell these girls and women who are all about using their bodies as bargaining chips is the un-P.C. reality that doing so doesn't gain one any real respect. Grandma taught it; Mom taught it. It's one of the few things I'm willing to admit they were both right about.
I once had a beat as a beginning reporter that involved covering a county commission consisting of three men, two of whom were as backwoods and misogynistic as could be. They had zero respect for me when I started going to their meetings, and this lasted for several months, until I proved I was willing to gladly write, repeatedly, whatever it took to show what charlatans they were (factually, of course). The reporter before me, also a woman, covered them for a year or two, and she tried a different tack - admittedly very pretty and leggy, she showed off her legs, flirted with them, and alluded to the promise of more if they would cooperate with her requests for information. Not only did they play games with her the whole time and never cooperate with her, for years after she was gone, it was generally talked about around the courthouse what a slut Judy was and how bad she was at her job - because she chose to negotiate with sex rather than a brain.
That, girls, is reality. You may not be popular if you don't put out in the course of the job, but you DO stand a better chance of getting what it is you really need and garnering respect rather than contempt. Those two commissioners hated me like poison, but they never again failed to respect me after I got them kicked out of office during the next election for reporting habitual misuse of county funds.
I am proud to say that I've never gone into a story or an editorial meeting thinking How can I use my cunt to get ahead? (I have used being a woman as a position from which to draw empathy to write about some other women in human interest stories, but only insofar as it was appropriate that gender may play some relevant role in the story.) I've also worked with a lawyer for the past few years doing research and accounting his office's finances (I'm a freelancer and it supplements my income), and I can honestly say that my ability to shake my tits has never entered into our relationship or helped me balance a budget sheet or find a legal reference. He doesn't pay me more than most other legal assistants around here make on the basis that I'm cute and willing to put out, either - it's because I've worked hard to learn my responsibilities, and no amount of flirting or sucking would've garnered me that education.
Just because the women's movement (finally!) afforded us freedom of sex and the full range of life choices doesn't mean sex has to play into every life choice we make. Just because men WILL stare at your tits doesn't mean you should use them to get ahead in anything other than a personal sexual or romantic relationship. (Same goes for women if you're inclined toward lesbians.) I don't believe learning to meet men in business on terms of brains, talent, chutzpah, and respect is "competing in a man's world" - it's our fault for still using that term. We are now every bit as much a part of that "man's world" and it's a dangerously antiquated phrase that allows for silliness such as "Oh, I can use my sex to get ahead! Squee!" to be seen as genuine empowerment and a replacement for - or supplement to - education, talent, and willingness to learn.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 12:35 am (UTC)I know that my being cute had a hand in helping me land my job, but I walked into my interview in a pair of trousers and a button shirt that showed absolutely no cleavage and I can't imagine doing my business by showing my body and basically selling myself in that manner.
I need to shower and wash my brain now.
As for your thoughts on DMC, a lot of those points seem like you pulled them from my brain!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 12:55 am (UTC)Anyway, the reporter in it sleeps with him to get inside-industry information, and when she publishes it, he's fired as the cigarette company PR flak. Somehow, however, he turns things around for himself AND manages to tell other media how this reporter fucked him for her information. He ends up with a fairly good consulting job, and she ends up having to give the in-the-field hurricane report in Florida on local cable-access, LOL ...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 01:31 am (UTC)Now, if only real life acted like that (as far as karma!).
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 12:45 am (UTC)Although I can honestly say that wearing a low-cut top never hurt my prices when I was tattooing, usually because the idiots were so focused on the girls that they'd just nod and fork over the cash like little angels. *wink* But tattooing doesn't count, does it? I mean, it's not your average job. And talk about a completely male-oriented business! The ONLY way to deal with it was to play all sugar and spice until they were in the chair. Then, I was in charge and it's a rare man who's gonna piss off the woman carving pictures in his skin. LOL!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 12:51 am (UTC)Besides, you could've gone naked because you had the ouchy needle, and they would've had to leave you alone!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-06 01:06 am (UTC)And you're absolutely right to a point---most of the female clients were smarter than the guys and usually wanted to see the artists' books. The way we worked it, normal walk-in business went to whoever was up next, provided it was a piece of artwork they could handle proficiently. Specialised pieces that required more time and 'pre-production' were by appt. and in that case, we would refer the client to whichever of us did the best of that kind of work: I was really good with florals and fantasy stuff. Eric was the techno and celtic wizard, etc. etc.
In otherwords, yeah. NOT your average job at all! *lol*
no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 01:56 am (UTC)The feminism thing is so true. Sexuality has it's place but people need to learn when and were. But using it as a weapon is a double edged sword, and one should be aware of the possible repercussions and must be willing to live with the consequences.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 02:04 am (UTC)No, no. There are no consequences to using sex to get what you want. You can flash your tits and a fellow's still going to think you're the cleverest, most capable thing EVAH.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 06:09 am (UTC)Damn woman, always giving me good advice. XD
You can flash your tits and a fellow's still going to think you're the cleverest, most capable thing EVAH.
Boobs, the quickest way to respect and admiration. Is there anything they can't do?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 06:32 pm (UTC)Well, what the fuck you want I SHOULD judge her on? The fact that she's female? White? English? Everyone is judged on their actions - that's really the only thing you CAN judge a body on. It isn't my fault that she's basically categorized herself as just another pussy to Jack Sparrow now - blame those wonderfully talented, AWEsome, gifted screenwriters you Sparrabethers worship so damn much.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 06:56 am (UTC)On DMC, your views on the feasibility of J/E seem to have evolved from Acceptable to Impossible. I like your take on Elizabeth's confusion and it works... but I would have preferred a Disney movie not to need quite that degree of complex meta to justify itself.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-07 03:54 pm (UTC)I tried hard to like it. Early on, because I saw so many other people were so damn happy with it - including fandom diehards and BNFs I had previously trusted to have enough intelligence to know the difference between plausible and implausible - I thought something was wrong with my faculties for feeling "icky" about most of it. And don't get me wrong, some things were GOOD about the movie, most notably how they gave Will a chance to shine and be more than the stock prince.
And people have been defending Elizabeth because she didn't actually do anything with Jack. I say bullshit ... and this is sort of what led into my feminist rant. Rant 1: There is a difference between going on a date with a guy and flirting, and still expecting to get to say "no" at the end of the night and be entitled to that - there is a difference between that and blatantly coming on to someone heavily while you're ENGAGED and your fiance might be fucking FISH FOOD while you're purring and cozying up to another man. This is unacceptable behavior for Elizabeth, given what we know of her in CotBP. (And let's be honest: it's been less than a year, and she's been living pretty much as she did before CotBP. She is not going to change THAT much in that period of time.)
Rant 2: That she somehow needed to persuade Jack to help her find Will, so that's why she acted as she did. SHE DIDN'T NEED TO FUCKING PERSUADE SOMEONE WHO OFFERED TO TAKE HER TO WHAT WOULD SAVE WILL IN THE FIRST PLACE! It's like paying for a meal someone has already comped to you - they're both just stupid.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 10:30 am (UTC)I didn't like the flirtations, the coyness, the whole J/E leanings. Forget bad taste and the whole Will betrayal (although I definitely agree and it certainly didn't make me love Elizabeth or Jack as a matter of fact). My problem was it was that it was totally faked.
They could have created a J/E scenario realistically. I am a writer and I know with clever plotting, it is not impossible to make a character do a 180o. But T&T, Disney, etc. did not do clever plotting. They back-tracked and tried to fool us the audience into thinking that the attraction had always been there and that Elizabeth had always had a soft spot for Jack. Er... sorry, No. The Elizabeth from CotBP didn't see Jack as anything more than first the symbol of deflated childhood fantasies and secondly, one more man that she could manipulate into getting the only thing she ultimately wanted - Will. She would have been saddened by his hanging, but that would have been eclipsed by her own personal grief at not marrying the man she loved. At the end of the movie, she had got her pirate and she seemed pretty darn smug about it.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-11 11:57 pm (UTC)I've said this and everything that comes after for months. As Judge Judy puts it, don't pee on my leg and then tell me it's raining. *G*
I read J/E on occasion before DMC. The good stories - THEIR premises were obviously good, or they wouldn't have been good. Which means they picked up on something besides the "fakery" you mention. Perhaps my biggest beef with J/E after DMC is the laziness in believing every glance and look and THEN pushing it so hard off on everyone else as THE Great Love Story of All Time. Lazy, fine. Pushy, not so good.
Re: your feminists rant.
Date: 2007-04-07 03:21 pm (UTC)Re: your feminists rant.
Date: 2007-04-07 03:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, someone's going to come kick my ass for saying she's acting like a whore. Bring it on. A whore is available to the nearest paying customer, which is exactly how Elizabeth acted through the second half of DMC - after meeting up with Jack, unless she was right next to a guy, they didn't exist for her. These people conveniently forget that it was SHE who was making such a damn fuss about how moral and upright and decent SHE was over Jack. Don't advertise a set of goods you're not willing to back up with action, I say.
Re: your feminists rant.
Date: 2007-04-08 12:53 am (UTC)Agree about the whorish behavior -- that whole Persuade Me/Curiosity stuff just drove me insane. I'd read about it previously, but to actually see it made me cringe. Even Jack doesn't come off in a good light there -- I didn't really see his behavior in those two scenes as OOC, but he just seemed...off, somehow, and not as charming as last time (I'm sad to admit).
Yes, when she was telling Jack about her "moral center" (Ha!) and criticizing Jack's lack of hygiene (Disney heroine or not, this is still the 18th-century, and she herself wouldn't be smelling like a rose).