| Posted by Bel | The time is 9.40am here in Wellington NZ |

A film that you hate

The Killer Inside Me

I only watched 20 minutes or less of this movie before leaving the room and putting on headphones in my bedroom. I felt physically ill. I was upset still the next day and tried to appease some of it by making a donation to Women's Refuge.

The violence and the sexualisation of violence is abhorrent. I feel the film is sadly accurate in its evocation of family violence in that women are most likely to be killed by their partner. Having to see a young woman's face get repeatedly smashed by the fist of her boyfriend as she cries out that she loves him was too chilling.

(Because in case you were wondering and possibly thinking the hype means it's worth watching, when a commentator says "he beats her to a pulp" that is meant literally. You have been warned.)

Don't try and tell me some bullshit about how the film having an emotional impact shows its power of storytelling. I don't wanna hear about the book it was based on and how that somehow justifies the content. You can fuck right off with your explanations of how there is a moral underpinning to balance out other connotations.

There are enough women being murdered and raped in their homes without Hollywood adding a 'sexy' fictional version.

| Posted by Lou | The time is 5.33pm here in London UK |

Reading Letters to the Editor is often a soul-sucking activity that provides a reminder of how many ignorant fuckwits there are in the world.

I think this is the first time reading them has made me want to turn to the person next to me on the tube and give them a high five:



Ellie, can we be friends?

Posted by Bel. The time is 3.17pm here in Wellington NZ. Reblogged from I Am Offended Because... by Ally

Eff You Peter Carlisle

by Ally of I Am Offended Because...

There is a pro-choice rally in Wellington on Tuesday. [Bel's note: i.e. tomorrow, 5th October. See details on poster below] I really wish that I could go. Partly because I want to feel like a proper days-of-yore feminist who goes to six protests before breakfast and then goes home to read the Beauty Myth. Partly because abortion is actually illegal in New Zealand and because getting an abortion requires already vulnerable women to jump through hoops like little sparkly-ruffed circus dogs. I'd like to go to the rally because for a woman to choose abortion in New Zealand she has to see two different doctors and she has to tell them that the continuation of her pregnancy will endanger her life, her mental health or her physical health. If she lives outside of Christchurch, Wellington or Auckland she will have to travel, often meaning many days away from work and away from her local support network. MP Steve Chadwick is currently proposing an Abortion Reform Bill to take abortion out of the Crimes Act, which surprisingly will be opposed by anti-abortion group Voice For Life. The life that they advocate for of course being that of unborn foetuses, rather than the full and healthy lives of women and their planned families. So I have a few pretty good reasons for wanting to go and protest.

But mostly, I'd like to go to the rally to say a big 'fuck you' to Peter Carlisle. I don't know who Peter Carlisle is, but he posted this on the Facebook event page for the No More Jumping Through Hoops Abortion Rights Protest and I instantly hated him:

Needless to say, I am more than a little offended by the dismissive, misogynist, homophobic, slut-shaming and inaccurate Peter Carlisle. So were a whole lot of other open legged lesbians on the event page. Nicola made this brilliant point:

Astute, although I often wish that we didn't have to use extreme situations like rape or incest to suggest that a woman should be entitled full control of her body. Hannah casually pointed out Peter's apparent lack of basic biological knowledge:

My friend Izzy, a she-wolf if there ever was one, eloquently put Peter in his place:

But Tessa possibly had the best argument of all:

And just quietly, Peter Carlisle is not only poorly informed about basic biology but also about the meaning of the word contraception. He should possibly get his facts right before posting on a Facebook event filled with slutty lesbians who also happen to be pedants. Contraception is something that is used to prevent conception, so I am guessing that most women who request abortion are a little past that point. And if Peter means that women are using abortion as a method of birth control, perhaps he should go and read this awesome blog post at the Curvature. Here is a snippet:

"Because do you understand the actual words you are speaking? Do you know what birth control is? It’s right there, in the name. It is something you use to control whether or not you give birth. That’s it. Ta-da. The end. When someone says “lots of women use abortion as a form of birth control!” what they mean is “lots of women use abortion.” The extra words are unnecessary. How the hell else are you going to use it?"

I would love to go to that protest to shove it to Peter Carlisle. I would like to shove it to all of the Peter Carlisles of the world; men who think they ought to have a say in what women do with their bodies. I would love to go because full equality depends upon women having full control over their fertility. I would love to show my support for Steve Chadwick's bill, because often it is not abortion that causes mental distress, it is the obstacles that women face. I would love to shove it to Peter Carlisle for suggesting that women who have abortions are sexually promiscuous and for even thinking that the amount of sex a woman has is something that can be used as an insult. It would be great to ask him about a pile of things, like why he thinks that my being a lesbian (or at least a woman who is in a same sex relationship) somehow seems to undermine my stance on reproductive rights or why he seems to think that women are solely responsible for planning when to have kids. I would like to take him up on why he thinks it is appropriate to tell another human being to just shut their legs. I would like to tell him about how no contraceptive is 100% effective and about how nobody is perfect and about the many women who have died in back alley procedures as a consequence of limited access to safe and legal abortion . I would like to tie him to a chair and make him watch Vera Drake. I would like to ask him why he feels so comfortable with the idea of forcing his moral beliefs onto others. I would like to politely suggest that if Peter Carlisle doesn't like abortions then maybe he doesn't have to get one, but he shouldn't rob others of their personal choice.

But I can't go to the protest. I will be sitting at my desk at work devoting eight hours of my day to typing, mediocrity and capitalism. But maybe you can. Go. Shove it to Peter Carlisle.


If you live in Wellington and you want to stick it to Peter Carlisle you should go to the No More Jumping Through Hoops: Abortion Rights Protest at the Court of Appeal tomorrow, on the 5th of October. Make a stand against Right to Life is taking the Abortion Supervisory Committee to court, to try and further restrict women's access to abortion in New Zealand.Meet on the corner of Aitken and Molesworth Street at 12.30pm and wear something red. I understand that organisers are also looking for volunteers to hand out fliers this afternoon at the train station and on Tuesday morning they need help blowing up balloons.

Email actionforabortionrights [at] gmail.com for more information or go to the Facebook event page.

Reblogged from I Am Offended Because... by Ally

Posted by Bel. The time is 4.23pm here in Wellington, NZ.


You know what? I had half-written a rather level headed review of Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones. I acknowledged the fractious process of adaptation and the importance of regarding a story within its own medium. But you know what? No. Not even.

The Lovely Bones sucks. It's a sucky movie, made worse because it is a sucky adaptation of a pretty great book.

It doesn't know if it's a crime thriller or a teen fantasy or some kind of melodramatic family drama. The script neglects key themes of the original novel, leaving you with characters who do inexplicable things or who are inexplicably boring.

Hence, it's filled with tedious performances, whilst you only get glimpses of star turns. Yes, I mean you, o wonderous and photogenic Saoirse Ronan, and you, o joyous scene-stealer Susan Sarandon - thank the computer generated heavens. You two did what you could - but it would never be enough to save this film from a terrible fate: mediocrity.

Clockwise: 1) Teenage fantasy romance scene: Susie loves being in The Inbetween and doesn't give a crap about her grieving family.
2) Family drama crime thriller scene: Susie's dad, Susie's dad's wig and Susie's mum grieve very much for their daughter, whilst not doing much each occasionally asking the useless community police constable if there's been any clues. (Spoiler: no!)
3) Fantasy crime thriller scene: Susie's dad freaks out a bit when Susie tries to communicate with him and also he sees his reflection.
4) Fantasy Weta Workshop jerk-off scene: take that, James Cameron!

Things that Peter Jackson can do:

• Sweet special effects. The special effects in this are pretty sweet.
• Tall, skinny buildings. There is a lighthouse in this which looks pretty good and is only vaguely reminiscent of Sauron's tower. Maybe they recycled the model and just made it a bit different? Like they did with Mount Ruapehu/Mount Doom for LOTR?
• Scary bearded men. LOTR had many of them, in The Lovely Bones, the main guy is one. Perhaps PJ was one of those children scared of Santa.

Things that Peter Jackson cannot do:

• Love, romance or sexual tension of any kind. The meet-cute for Susie and Ray is worse than any scene between Aragon and Arwen or Sam and Frodo. It is awful. Excruciating. Cringe-worthy. And not just because of Ray's floating-head inducing skivvy and spiral perm:

Seriously, WTF? Isn't he supposed to be Indian?

This is a bad thing is a movie which is based on a book which hinges on the main character's love and longing keeping her in a state of limbo, unable to let go of a life she feels she hasn't yet lived to the fullest.

Things that managed to happen anyway, despite Peter Jackson's ineptitude:

• Susan Sarandon went 'fuck this, I'm gonna have me a good time' and set about stealing every bit of limelight possible. She then disappears from the third act of the film. I wish they had just cut in a shot of her passed out behind the couch, you totally would have bought it.

Things that annoyed me most about this sucky film (SPOILERS ABOUND):

• They took out the bit about the mum having the affair with the police detective, okay, fair enough, time constraints, whatever. I'm not mad because he was played by Michael Imperioli AKA Christopher off Sopranos for whom I still mourn, no. I'm mad because they then changed it to being that the mum just decides to up and leave her family (wee boy, teenage girl whose sister just got mysteriously murdered, messed up husband) and they have this shot of her fruit picking. And they didn't have the family react to her abandonment in any way. They all carried on just as before! And then she comes back and there is no reaction to that either!!
  I would have thought they could at least have someone kicking her in the shins for being such a selfish bitch.
  
  
• They also cut out or trimmed down a whole bunch of other characters, the "lovely bones" as Susie explains it, those who grow up around the space she left behind. With this script's heavy focus on the isolated serial killer at the expense of those others, it seems it was more the "loathsome one".
  The worst for me was the way they made Ruth into this random 'weirdo chick' with seemingly little connection to the story, occasionally frowning in a psychic kind of way and then showing up as girlfriend-of-Ray at the end. I can't imagine how the whole transdental body swapping thing would have made any sense at all for a viewer who hadn't read the book.
  
  
• The complete lack of any reference whatsoever to rape. No one says it. Not even once.
  
  
• When the weirdo body swap thing happens at the end, how they totally wussed out of making it a proper sex scene. In the book, when Susie turns her back on heaven in order to have a few moments on earth with Ray, her intention is to indulge physically in enjoying her body with him, with the emotional release that this will bring for her. Alice Sebold's text explicits refers to them having sex together (in the shower, on the couch, in the bedroom) and even makes mention of Susie's reclaiming of sex and of the penis as a (not) weapon, moving from victimhood to an understanding of sexuality in a context of love and sharing and what sounds like some hot raunchy fun.
  In the movie, we get to see them gazing into each other's eyes, then it goes to another scene, then when it cuts back, they are lying fully dressed on the bed. We don't even get treated to the standard Hollywood L-shaped sheet.
  This kind of links back to my point about 'RAPE? AYE? WHAT? NOT HERE. NOTHING TO SEE. MOVE IT ALONG.' but in general, I find it weird that they weren't willing to give her a hint of sexuality or adult passion.

Okay. I could go on. But I will stop now. For my own sanity, let alone yours.

I should have put this link at the top, but my Number #2 Film Critic Girl Crush, Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek has a brilliantly scathing review here which you should have read instead of this. She mentions that Lynn Ramsay (Morvern Callar) was originally attached to this project - oh what might've been!

Posted by Lou. The time is 3.55pm here in London, UK.

This blogger is compiling a list - with links - of the Hollywood folks who have spoken out against Polanski and/or his apologists.

Posted by Lou. The time is 4.40pm here in London.


Dear Pedro Almodovar, Tilda Swinton, Woody Allen, Terry Gilliam, Monica Belluci, Alfonso Cuaron, Stephen Frears, David Lynch, Martin Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Darren Aranofsky, and others,

Drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl - orally, vaginally and anally - isn't merely a "case of morals". It is not cancelled out by him being "one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers". And quite frankly, the right of filmmakers to present their films "freely and safely" is light-years behind the importance of 13-year-old girls being able to live their lives "freely and safely" from the threat of rape.

You say "The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no-one [sic] can know the effects." You know what for me opens the way for actions of which nobody can know the effects? A 44-year-old man raping a 13-year-old girl and effectively getting away with it. No, not just getting away with it, but having people defend his getting away with it and position him as the victim.

You have completely lost my respect.

Yours sincerely,
Lou


Petition for Polanski's release
Polanski defenders lose sight of true victim

Posted by Bel. The time is 3:31pm here in Wellington, NZ.

In a macabre twist, Michael Jackson's sudden death caused a huge spike in his popularity. He went from being regarded as a debt-ridden weirdo with another precarious comeback hanging in the balance, to immediately being revered for his days of glory and various previous successes - with other matters swept aside as we took time to remember why we loved his music.

And it seems the music will be an on-going legacy, with the announcement that R Kelly intends to finish the album he and Michael Jackson were working on in June of this year. There has been a lot of speculation about unfinished and unreleased Jackson recordings, but Kelly seems to think he has the seal of approval: "Michael liked the way I would try to sing the songs just like him".

These two might not be such the odd couple, they have a long history, with R Kelly writing "You Are Not Alone", MJ's smash hit of 1995. His first #1, in fact, since being accused of having sex with an underage boy.

In the archives of Russell Brown's Hard News blog, check out the post from 2005 related to the second highly publicised set of allegations against Michael Jackson: detailing the pornographic magazines, DVDs and books that were found in his bedroom at the time and the implications this has upon someone who so frequently played host to other people's children.

Being found 'not guilty' does not always mean a person is innocent, as this BBC article about R Kelly's aquittal on charges of child pornography elaborates. Time covers the last moments of the trial and the jury's deliberations, including interviews with those who say they are certain it is R Kelly in the recording.

The Chicago Sun-Times lists R Kelly's repugnant past, including when they were first supplied with the tape reportedly showing him filming himself having sex with a 14 year old. It also covers in chronological order the many other attempted law suits and out of court settlements from various other young women who had involvements with R Kelly, and also his falsified and thus swiftly annulled marriage to Aaliyah, who was at that time the 15 year old niece of his manager.

If you have the stomach for it, it's worth a read:
R. Kelly timeline: A chronology from birth to trial (Chicago Sun-Times).

Two superstars, with pop music talent that has helped to sell millions of records around the world. Horrifying that with such success, the personal cost has been inflicted on those who have the least ability to protect themselves.