Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
devincf

Episode #90: PENNIES FROM HEAVEN

  

154 members have voted

  1. 1. Is PENNIES FROM HEAVEN Canon?

    • Yes
      82
    • No, I don't pick up pennies on the ground, even if they're from heaven
      72


Recommended Posts

This is a big no. While it's an interesting experiment to behold, the film misfires on so many levels. Devin covered most of them in the episode. Martin not fitting the role is a huge example. I appreciate what it was trying to do, and that gives it some worth, but worthy to be considered among the greatest of all time? Absolutely not. This is an ambitious film that soars into mediocrity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

When Amy said something along the lines "you want to be on his side from the very beginning," was she talking about the scene where he borderline tries to rape his wife? If I'm supposed to sympathize with this monster, the movie failed miserably.

 

Sorry Amy. We all love you, but this movie just isn't very good. I gotta say no.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't seen this, and am unlikely to track it down before voting is closed. I just wanted to go on record as saying I didn't like Shop Girl.

Share this post


Link to post

Martin, Walken and Peters deliver strong performances. I feel like Devin misdiagnosed Martin's performance as his smiling exuberance isn't snark but closer to Amy's vision of wanton striving. I didn't empathize with Martin until seeing him mouth the words to the musical - the performance shows an insane love of this Depression-era music.

 

However, Arthur is unquestionably despicable. He loves to the point of overwhelming the willpower of his female targets (notably the visually-impaired girl is not charmed by the"handsome" Martin). Arthur's aggressive masculinity is given comeuppance only through (as Devin harped on) an arbitrary murder that has unearned neat screenwriting.

 

Is the movie trying to punish Arthur? It fails at that since he is a victim of fate.

Is the movie trying to humanize Arthur? It does show the power of his passions yet he gives up on his wife and two careers for... sex?

 

I may be biased since I'm not wooed by the 30s or musicals, but the movie doesn't skewer either in a clear way. I disagree with Devin that it was constructed/directed sloppily as the blend of lip-sync and honest-to-goodness dancing is a fascinating blend of aspiration and unused ability. The theme is hard to discern outside of ruining Fred Astaire's memories.

The punishing unfairness of the Depression and the music industry comes through at times but is, IMO, overwhelmed by Martin's scumbaggery.

 

Ambition: great

Execution: innovative

Storytelling: uneven and overwhelmed by the music

Performances: strong top-four but no set tone.

Influence: bummed out Steve Martin, liked by Pauline Kael and Amy, determinedly difficult to recommend

Overall: best send-up of half-century old music adapted from a British series.

 

Soft No.

 

Not that entertaining if you don't like the songs, cruel male characters or over-packed screenplays. You have to watch it closely and it doesn't really reward you for doing so. Better Steve Martin movies, better musicals, better critiques of Depression-era. Ambitious but not Canon

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Marginal yes, but this is definitely a flawed movie.

 

I can never get past part of the central conceit: I really want to hear the cast actually sing! It's Peters, Harper, and Martin - the talent is there, and I don't think the lip syncing adds too much more to the proceedings, so I'm always frustrated that they denied us that. If we got real musical numbers I'd rate the movie way higher.

 

I think Devin's questions about POV are fair-ish, but I also think that the whole "real or imagined" approach to musicals is something we have all over-valued ever since "Chicago". Just because one film utilized that frame doesn't mean we need to retroactively interrogate all prior musicals on those grounds. And I still think the "Pennies" approach to fantasy works even if it's not strictly rooted in any one character's psychology. Films rarely take place in the subjectivity of only one character, and it's not at all uncommon for movies to blur the lines for the benefit of an audience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

After Amy's weirdly petty attempt to take down Re-Animator - "Devin Trump"? - I watched this movie pretty ready to hear this movie be torn apart. And like Devin, I was surprised that the film had as much going for it as they did.

 

But it just doesn't work. As a kid I was disappointed that Steve Martin wasn't very Steve Martin-y in the film. As an adult I think he is TOO Steve Martin. Paul Simon once said that no matter what he does he just can't sound sincere. He tries, desperately, but it always comes out wry or ironic. That's how I feel about Steve Martin here. He's actually giving a good performance, but his natural Steve Martiness simply overshadows the performance which ends up crippling the character.

Share this post


Link to post

All the "I don't buy Steve Martin in this role" stuff is starting to remind me of the time he did that closed-circuit interview about art (which he happens to be an expert in) and the viewers got angry, prompting a massive refund.

 

A couple of days after the incident became a news item Martin tweeted "Made love to my wife last night. She asked for a refund."

 

I get it guys. It's hard to imagine the man that's done a thousand comedies of varying degrees of quality doing something as dour as Pennies From Heaven, but that was absolutely not an issue I had with this film in the slightest. The first time he opened his mouth and that old fuzzy recording came out my whole brain adjusted because I knew this was something very different.

 

I definitely think there are some fair criticisms to be made about the screenplay, but I completely disagree about Martin or the conceit. I got this weird buzz from it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Amy, it's not a bad movie but it's also not Canon. Neither is Re-Animator but oh well.

Share this post


Link to post

Long-time, first-time and all that rot.

 

This keeps coming back to the question of what the Canon represents, which neither of the creator/hosts nor the audience has ever come to a consensus on. Amy's argument felt very much rooted in whether she personally liked the film or not. I agree with the earlier poster who posited that the very concept of a movie needing a special "indulgence" entry for discussion should automatically disqualify it (and yes, I apply that equally to Re-Animator). Canon movies should be Canon-worthy. Everyone is entitled to get personal enjoyment out of whatever piece of entertainment floats their boat, but if we are applying some sort of higher-level objective criteria, the fact that you happened to like it should not be sufficient justification for inclusion.

 

Pennies From Heaven has not influenced cinema in any way, is not representative of superlative craftmanship, is itself derivative of a previous version of the same work, and has largely been relegated to a footnote in film history. This movie belongs prominently featured on Amy's Picks wall at her video store, but not in The Canon.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to give Amy the yes vote as a reward for her restraint in not putting forth American Ultra.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I feel torn.

 

On the one hand, I don't find Pennies from Heaven is a particularly good movie. All That Jazz, Dancer in the Dark, they've both covered this with faaaar more cinematic competence. Hell, the original BBC Miniseries did this better, but that should go without saying.

 

But... and it's a big but...

 

On the other hand, there's something Amy said in the middle of the podcast that's stuck with me. Amy has repeatedly expressed the notion the Canon is in danger of becoming over-swamped with dude-oriented nerdbait than with any other kind of movie. A good majority of us voted in Re-Animator on little to no basis other than it's a damn fun movie, which in theory I have no issue with, but I do find myself sympathizing with Amy's position that we're giving all the attention to these kinds of movies. It does sometimes feel we're giving a pass on films that get by on the fun factor and little else...

 

When messy yet ambitious movies like this are relegated to footnotes in cinematic history.

 

If we can give a fun but flawed movie like Re-Animator a pass into the Canon, why not Pennies From Heaven? For all of its faults, you can't deny this was a passion project, bursting with life and ambition. It may not have equated to excellence, but we've forgiven movies (if not canonized them already in some circles) with those qualities. See: how we appreciate the work of Ed Wood today.

 

... That said, it falls right smack into Amy's go-to argument about standards. Ironically.

 

Pennies From Heaven is not a perfect movie. Hell, it's kind of bad. Again, I refer to All That Jazz or Dancer in the Dark for covering similar ground and with greater panache. What's the point of a Canon meant to accept only the best, most memorable or important films of all time--paragons of genre, filmmaking schools, an entire artist's body of work, etc.--if we indulge the very idea of an indulgence pick? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the Canon if we allow certain movies a free ride based solely on personal feeling and no other criteria?

 

See what I mean by torn, guys? I want to be sympathetic to Amy's side of the argument, but I just wish she had selected All That Jazz or Dancer in the Dark as her "dark musical go-to."

Share this post


Link to post

I voted no, two reasons:

  1. There are better musicals that belong in The Canon instead of this. Musicals where people actually sing. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but there are no classic musicals in The Canon yet. How this gets in before West Side Story, Singin in the Rain, Fiddler on the Roof, or many others is beyond me.
  2. If we're going to vote on indulgence picks, then I think it should be a vs.episode with the other host picking the vs. movie.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm voting yes on this, and not a lukewarm, limp, soft yes. A hard yes. An enthusiastic yes. I love this movie for its artifice, which the film uses to examine the limits of escapism. When I watch it I think of that scene in "Sullivan's Travels" (a superior film, obviously) where the prisoners are watching the movie - a romanticized reverie about the entrancing power of the movies, and I think about "The Purple Rose of Cairo" and it's exposé of the tawdriness of the artifice of filmmaking - and I find Pennies from Heaven sitting right in the middle of the abyss between escapism and misery. (It's not alone, "One From the Heart," that other stylized killer of musicals is sitting right there with it.) I'm also all in with Gordon Willis's cinematography - his most underrated work - which channels Edward Hopper, Walker Evans, the glamour of old Hollywood and the rough imagery of the great depression. Ultimately, I think it's a unique and interesting film, and sometimes I find an interesting film preferable to a conventionally good one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I've loved this film for many years, one of the most original movie musicals ever made after Fosse's "Cabaret." Both films use the mechanics of musical numbers to refract not only the emotions of the characters but reflect on the social facts fixing their fates, which I think has to do with the sort of thing both these movies derive from, a kind of mini tradition spawned by the Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill team up of "The Three Penny Opera." In fact I think "Pennies" can be seen as "Three Penny" in an American key, with its low corrupt characters in a squalid depressed setting ironically played off against fun music, in order both to entertain on a pop level while simultaneously forcing viewers out of the situation so they'll think through all the social forces gnawing at and around the characters.

 

I bring all this up because Devin's take on the Steve Martin character seems just incredibly overblown. Sure he's a shallow self-interested sort of dude, but hardly a sociopath. Although I agree that Jessica Harper is a wonderful actor who finds a way to bring out something more than the usual cold wife routine used to justify the husband's philandering, still she's a pretty creepy woman, who obviously doesn't want anything to do with her husband physically. Her views about sex seem so repressed, prissy and backward she's like a young version of Norman Bates' mother! And then later she's willing to help get her husband lynched for a murder he didn't commit just to get back at him for cheating and having her put lipstick on her nips! Gimme a break. What's so great about the film, however, is the way that its characters are each put in all these unfair situations; each has their moment but eventually gives in to pettiness. It's a kind of chain: firstly it's unfair Martin should be tied to such a cold fish forever. On the other hand it seems unfair Harper should be forced to stay with a man she clearly has no feeling for. It's super unfair Martin can't make a go of things and then when he has a little completely understandable extra-marital nookie it's unfair Martin should be expected to have to take into account all the effects such a connection might have on Bernadette Peters' life--only a saint could manage that a hundred percent of the time. Then again its dreadfully unfair Peters should fall into such a vulnerable position, lose her job and be forced to prostitute herself all because she had a little fun. The problem isn't that any of the characters are sociopaths but that they're trapped in the tawdry social infrastructure of the movie's Depression Era world, its poverty and powerlessness. Because of this any move they make turns sour and petty, even fatal. The characters are so stuck in their own crap they don't notice what's wrong with life, the universe and everything. In fact, the bright musical fantasies function not merely as simple minded wish-fulfillment (which is what I thought Devin would object to) but a strange complicitous means with which to lubricate the aspects of their oppression; the gaudy Hollywood showstoppers are ultimately sops used to let off the steam, put the blame on mame, suggest there's no place like home even though whatever neighborhood it's in doesn't seem to be on the map.

 

Devin asked the question: Why is Martin put to death for a murder he didn't commit? He's right that it's presenting a cosmic sense of doom, but not a tragic one, the characters are too small for tragedy. What happens to them is absurd; their pathos comes in the tininess of their hopes, dreams and failures. Think of it in terms of the Richard Wright novel "Native Son" whose dangerous main character and naturalist noir ironies are quite similar to Pennies'--except that the Bigger Jones character understood the nature of the bars on his cage. I will say that the blindness of the murdered girl is maybe a little too symbolically on the nose--her blindness is that of fate, which might ultimately have been anything because Martin's doomed. And The happy-unhappy ending which Devin tied himself in knots hating on because it wasn't like the seventies films he compared it to seemed totally in-apposite. Firstly, the dark anti-heroes of "Taxi Driver" and "Five Easy Pieces" were far more unusual and substantial types than the Martin character, who seems to me quite normal. Plus Devin sort of mischaracterized those movies, suggesting that they just kind of ended without trying to push editorializing ironies on us, which is an interesting interpretation of both movies I think. The sad little point to "Pennies" is that its characters continue deluding themselves even in the face of death. The reason is that from their trapped perspectives they can't see what's wrong, because they're made of the same awful stuff as everything else in the movie, even as they long to be free of it.

 

And frankly, I don't understand where this rule that only Steve Martin's character should be allowed to have fantasy musical sequences comes from? The platonic realm of pure forms? Devin takes this further to suggest that it's somehow against the inherent nature of the film's structure for Walken to do his striptease number instead of Peters, when clearly this is her character projecting onto Walken what he's trying to turn her into. The scene is one of the great joys of cinema! It's the wittiest striptease ever filmed along with Rita Hayworth's in "Gilda" and one in "The Ruling Class". By having Walken strip and dance in front of pictures of nudes as he does it underlines and sends up what is done to women in such circumstances; Peters' character in particular. If Peters had done it herself it just would have been her exploiting herself rather than fantasizing about exploitation, as, say, the wonderfully creepy strip in Altman's "Nashville" almost feels like it does.

 

Anyway that's my lengthy argument for why "Pennies" is a great movie and should be in the canon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

... That said, it falls right smack into Amy's go-to argument about standards. Ironically.

 

Yes, if this doesn't get in I wonder if Amy will realize that she hoisted herself on her own pertard (or, if, I fear she will double down on being vicious towards anything nerd/genre fan oriented).

 

I have still abstained up to this point, but I almost want to vote for it because I fear if it doesn't get in that Amy may not take it well and the show will be less fun to listen to. Also, if they have the "removal" episode that they've been talking about, it would mean that poor "Re-Animator" would definitely be on the chopping block. For many episodes Amy's been saying that she's "afraid" to nominate this film. To me that came across a bit like manipulative sympathy baiting...wait...now I finally understand why she identifies with Steve Martin's character!

 

Anyway, Sunday night if it's still close I'll probably vote "yes"; not because I think it deserves to get in (I don't), but rather for the sake of the show that I enjoy hearing every Monday.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted no, two reasons:

  1. There are better musicals that belong in The Canon instead of this. Musicals where people actually sing. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but there are no classic musicals in The Canon yet. How this gets in before West Side Story, Singin in the Rain, Fiddler on the Roof, or many others is beyond me.
  2. If we're going to vote on indulgence picks, then I think it should be a vs.episode with the other host picking the vs. movie.

 

The Rocky Horror Picture Show made it in.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

On the other hand, there's something Amy said in the middle of the podcast that's stuck with me. Amy has repeatedly expressed the notion the Canon is in danger of becoming over-swamped with dude-oriented nerdbait than with any other kind of movie.

 

See, when Amy brings this up I still think this is a non-argument.

 

Dude-oriented I: In the history of cinema the vast majority of films made up to this point have been made by men. It's an unfortunate fact and there are historical and cultural reasons for this, but it's still a fact. By its nature, The Canon is going to be dude oriented regardless, just going off percentages.

 

Dude-oriented II: It's reductive to call certain topics "male" or "female". I have male friends who love musicals. I have female friends who love horror and sci-fi. Most of my friends are open-minded and like both (and both men and women go nuts for fantasy). Especially in our increasingly fluid times, genre need not be tied to a gender.

 

Nerd-bait I: What does this even mean any more? When the MCU is one of the most successful film (for lack of better term) franchises of all time, comics and sci-fi are no longer confined to the nerd realm. They're mainstream. Horror left nerd-dom long, long ago.

 

Nerd-bait II: What if we don't mean stereotypical "basement dwelling" nerd, but rather specifically the "film nerd"? Well, modern film nerds usually take the path of Tarantino where they can enjoy both the schlocky exploitation flicks as well as their 200th required film class viewing of "The Passion of Joan of Arc". And what is the point of a Canon if not to envelop the opinion of film nerds? Tarantino-esque film nerds are specifically why we can have both "Pather Panchali" and "Re-Animator" in the same Canon. (A Mark Cousins film nerd Canon would be enlightening...but far less fun. Lighten up, Mark!)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

See, when Amy brings this up I still think this is a non-argument.

 

Dude-oriented I: In the history of cinema the vast majority of films made up to this point have been made by men. It's an unfortunate fact and there are historical and cultural reasons for this, but it's still a fact. By its nature, The Canon is going to be dude oriented regardless, just going off percentages.

 

Dude-oriented II: It's reductive to call certain topics "male" or "female". I have male friends who love musicals. I have female friends who love horror and sci-fi. Most of my friends are open-minded and like both (and both men and women go nuts for fantasy). Especially in our increasingly fluid times, genre need not be tied to a gender.

 

Nerd-bait I: What does this even mean any more? When the MCU is one of the most successful film (for lack of better term) franchises of all time, comics and sci-fi are no longer confined to the nerd realm. They're mainstream. Horror left nerd-dom long, long ago.

 

Nerd-bait II: What if we don't mean stereotypical "basement dwelling" nerd, but rather specifically the "film nerd"? Well, modern film nerds usually take the path of Tarantino where they can enjoy both the schlocky exploitation flicks as well as their 200th required film class viewing of "The Passion of Joan of Arc". And what is the point of a Canon if not to envelop the opinion of film nerds? Tarantino-esque film nerds are specifically why it can have both "Pather Panchali" and "Re-Animator" in the same Canon. (A Mark Cousins film nerd Canon would be enlightening...but far less fun. Lighten up, Mark!)

 

I find this slightly disingenuous. I think you know full well what I mean when I say dude-oriented nerdbait and it has nothing to do with whether or not the vast majority of filmmakers are male or the increasing dissolution of the original meaning of the word "nerd." There's no question most films that will make it into the Canon will be directed by men, but we recently inducted Kiki's Delivery Service, a movie made by a man and yet utterly empathetic with female sensibilities. There are filmmakers out there, from all walks of life, capable of conveying more than one viewpoint.

 

(And I'm pretty sure if you asked the man himself, Miyazaki would say with no small amount of heat that he didn't make it for nerds and geeks)

 

When Amy expresses concern about nerdbait movies taking over the Canon, she's referring to films that speak only to one viewpoint, films that prioritize fun and visceral thrill over loftier ambitions, films designed to entice true blue (and very often male) 80s-defined nerds over all else. Yes, all films and all media have reached demographics on the periphery (see: My Little Pony and the Brony Phenomenon), but that original intent still matters.

 

And, yes, these days genre need no longer be constrained to gender, but that's not an applicable argument to be made about GenX nostalgia touchstones like Re-Animator, Conan the Barbarian or Indiana Jones, among others, these were clearly made for a specific audience in mind. Anyone can like them, as you said, but look at it from Amy's point of view.

 

She clearly loves cinema. She breathes it just as passionately as Devin does. With that in mind, imagine seeing people swarm over genre faire while neglecting movies (like Pennies From Heaven) that receive nowhere near the same level of cult obsession as movies like Re-Animator receive, despite possessing just as much creativity, passion and possibly greater ambition. I sympathize with her doubling down on genre faire and I say this as someone who loves that stuff. We don't give other genres or schools of thought as much love and attention the same way we do geek-inclined pop culture gems.

 

There should be room in the Canon for movies that aren't "outwardly" fun but offer at least everything else we value in the arts.

 

Note: We don't have to agree with Amy, but we should strive to see from her perspective and empathize.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yes, if this doesn't get in I wonder if Amy will realize that she hoisted herself on her own pertard (or, if, I fear she will double down on being vicious towards anything nerd/genre fan oriented).

 

I have still abstained up to this point, but I almost want to vote for it because I fear if it doesn't get in that Amy may not take it well and the show will be less fun to listen to. Also, if they have the "removal" episode that they've been talking about, it would mean that poor "Re-Animator" would definitely be on the chopping block. For many episodes Amy's been saying that she's "afraid" to nominate this film. To me that came across a bit like manipulative sympathy baiting...wait...now I finally understand why she identifies with Steve Martin's character!

 

Anyway, Sunday night if it's still close I'll probably vote "yes"; not because I think it deserves to get in (I don't), but rather for the sake of the show that I enjoy hearing every Monday.

 

 

I really doubt Amy was being disingenuous when she said she was afraid to nominate this movie. She's offering up her favorite movie, which happens to be really hard to defend, to a forum of strangers. This is a movie that she clearly loves and it obviously means a lot to her and I think we all have films we would be hesitant to debate in this fashion. Amy is not a strict genre fan but she is a film enthusiast and I'm sure she is not so vindictive as to skew future episodes unfairly.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Although I agree that Jessica Harper is a wonderful actor who finds a way to bring out something more than the usual cold wife routine used to justify the husband's philandering, still she's a pretty creepy woman, who obviously doesn't want anything to do with her husband physically. Her views about sex seem so repressed, prissy and backward she's like a young version of Norman Bates' mother! And then later she's willing to help get her husband lynched for a murder he didn't commit just to get back at him for cheating and having her put lipstick on her nips! Gimme a break. What's so great about the film, however, is the way that its characters are each put in all these unfair situations; each has their moment but eventually gives in to pettiness. It's a kind of chain: firstly it's unfair Martin should be tied to such a cold fish forever. On the other hand it seems unfair Harper should be forced to stay with a man she clearly has no feeling for. It's super unfair Martin can't make a go of things and then when he has a little completely understandable extra-marital nookie it's unfair Martin should be expected to have to take into account all the effects such a connection might have on Bernadette Peters' life--only a saint could manage that a hundred percent of the time.

 

I agree with a lot of your points but I think you're way over simplifying the experience of Jessica Harper's character. I think we can imagine that her and Bernadette Peters were raised in similarly conservative and probably religious households where women were taught early and strictly to be ashamed of their sexuality. The two women represent very different reactions to that experience but just because one of them is more modern does not make the other illegitimate. I think Harper's character cares for Martin's on a very deep emotional level even if she can't bring herself to express it physically. That scene you're talking about where she puts lipstick on her nipples is really gut wrenching. She forces herself into a vulnerable and humiliating situation because she loves him and she is scared that she is going to be replaced. It's the ultimate damned role where she has been taught all her life to be chaste and virginal and now is expected to be sexual and to please the needs of her husband. He is completely unsympathetic to her and berates and belittles her for not complying to his advances. She is obviously very repressed but as far as her ideas being backwards, I think it only looks that way to modern eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

I really doubt Amy was being disingenuous when she said she was afraid to nominate this movie. She's offering up her favorite movie, which happens to be really hard to defend, to a forum of strangers. This is a movie that she clearly loves and it obviously means a lot to her and I think we all have films we would be hesitant to debate in this fashion. Amy is not a strict genre fan but she is a film enthusiast and I'm sure she is not so vindictive as to skew future episodes unfairly.

 

All of this. We're not giving her enough credit.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I voted no, two reasons:

  1. There are better musicals that belong in The Canon instead of this. Musicals where people actually sing. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but there are no classic musicals in The Canon yet. How this gets in before West Side Story, Singin in the Rain, Fiddler on the Roof, or many others is beyond me.
  2. If we're going to vote on indulgence picks, then I think it should be a vs.episode with the other host picking the vs. movie.

 

 

This was exactly how I felt when Re-Animator made it in. After that, I mentioned that I was afraid of the Canon becoming too single minded in it's focus. In the Re-Animator thread here and on BMD, I saw a lot of people saying genre-films shouldn't be dismissed cause of other genre films but I wonder how many of those people would make the same argument for movies with more feminine sensibilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

This was exactly how I felt when Re-Animator made it in. After that, I mentioned that I was afraid of the Canon becoming too single minded in it's focus. In the Re-Animator thread here and on BMD, I saw a lot of people saying genre-films shouldn't be dismissed cause of other genre films but I wonder how many of those people would make the same argument for movies with more feminine sensibilities.

 

This is exactly my point. Well, it's one of my main two points, anyway. Too often it seems to me we wish to believe we're living in a post-gender world, that we vote for films on this forum based on merit... but how can we if we rarely give films geared specifically towards a feminine gendered perspective and experience the time of day? Scrolling through the Canon, i find its telling the few that have been accepted had to be couched in high concept genre (Pan's Labyrinth, Kiki).

 

The other point was the lack of representation or love for non-geek films.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×