The Help..... really?

[Wien 401]

http://fyi.earwolf.com/movie/771205918

 

Why the hell would somebody recommend this movie as racist rubbish? Thats REALLY missing the point, there.

 

Anybody want to own this one?

[Shannon 2953]

I remember when this movie came out and there were so many blogs that were like, "eyeroll another feel good movie about a pretty white lady rescuing the black people" and that the story itself had no merit because the book was written by a white lady, and I kind of didn't really understand it.

 

I read the book long before the movie came out and the message that I got from it was that it really fucking sucked to be black in the south in the 60s. Other than a few funny or uplifting moments, nothing in that book makes you feel good. It's a really sad story about a really shitty time that wasn't even that long ago.

 

I don't remember the movie well because I only saw it once and I was comparing it to the book the whole time so it's fuzzy. Maybe the movie missed the point somehow?

 

I guess I just wonder if you tell stories about a time of extreme prejudice is it automatically racist? Like, isn't it just historically accurate that a white person would have to write a book about black housekeepers because no one who published books in the 60s would have even listened to a black person for five minutes?

 

blah, whatever I could be completely and totally wrong, and maybe this isn't even what you were talking about Wien.

 

...oh, I also totally didn't tag the movie with that so I'm not confessing to anything.

[sillstaw 414]

I think the main complaint is that the story is about black maids in the South during the civil rights era, and the hero of the story is a white woman who doesn't do anything to improve their lot in life. It'd be like making a movie about Stonewall and making the hero a heterosexual lawyer; you have a great subject, so why ignore it for the story of someone who wasn't really affected by it?

[thestray 361]

Well, like the bloggers you paraphrased said, it's another in a long line of white savior films.These movies all make it seem like black people were suffering in silence until a white person came along and inspired them to stand up for themselves.The Help, and most films by white people about racism, always frame white people as the hero or agent of change. They kinda make it seem like civil rights was THEIR idea, haha. When in reality black people started the civil rights movement and put their lives on the line and fought for themselves, and made progress, and their stories largely go untold because it's hard to get a movie made about black people fighting racism unless you can find a way to also make it uplifting for white people by putting a kind-hearted open-minded brave white person at the center of it. White audiences largely do not want to be reminded about America's past unless the get to see that "There were some good ones too!", ya know?

 

The movie has some well-meaning messages for sure, and you can take something positive away from it, I personally wouldn't go so far as to call it outright racist because it comes from a good place, but it still kinda just reinforces some problematic aspects of how movies deal with racism and how black people can't even be the heroes in stories of their own liberation. I don't think the author was wrong for wanting to tell this story, and I don't think it's wrong to depict a white person as an ally in this type of film. I don't think this movie would've bothered people so much if we weren't seeing this white savior myth over and over again.

 

Like, imagine if every movie about feminism had some dude at the center of it, fighting on women's behalf, instead of focusing on any of the badass women throughout history who fought for their rights. If you saw that over and over again it would start to feel pretty sexist.

 

I didn't suggest the movie myself, but I'm GUESSING that's where whoever did was coming from.

[imhatch 271]

this movie is basically panacea for acute white guilt but even if this podcast approached it from that angle idk if it would be a particularly interesting episode

[PlanBFromOuterSpace 3138]

this movie is basically panacea for acute white guilt but even if this podcast approached it from that angle idk if it would be a particularly interesting episode

Or "regular guilt" as Jason might say!

[Shannon 2953]

Oh no!, please dont misunderstand me. I am not at all trying to say that the white savior trope doesn't exist or that it isn't extremely problematic. 

 

I was only saying that from the book perspective Skeeter (Emma stones character) was not the hero. For most of the book shes as much as an antagonist as Hilly. Because she thinks she's the hero and gets really mad that the maids don't trust her and is completely oblivious to her own privilege. By the end of the novel, she realizes her complicity in the world she lives in, can't deal and runs away to NY. Abeline is the hero of the novel hands down.

 

But it seems that as in most novels turned to movies, all the nuance and details that make it good fall away in order to cram it all into a 90 min movie.

 

[seanotron 2307]

As I recall there was also an issue in that the woman who wrote the book was sued by the real-life Abeline for basically taking her life's story and not compensating her in any way. I think it was thrown out because of a statute of limitations issue, but it kind of added an ugly undercurrent to the whole thing.

[TonyPSU7 2]

Oh no!, please dont misunderstand me. I am not at all trying to say that the white savior trope doesn't exist or that it isn't extremely problematic.

 

I was only saying that from the book perspective Skeeter (Emma stones character) was not the hero. For most of the book shes as much as an antagonist as Hilly. Because she thinks she's the hero and gets really mad that the maids don't trust her and is completely oblivious to her own privilege. By the end of the novel, she realizes her complicity in the world she lives in, can't deal and runs away to NY. Abeline is the hero of the novel hands down.

 

But it seems that as in most novels turned to movies, all the nuance and details that make it good fall away in order to cram it all into a 90 min movie.

 

I think the main problem with the book and the movie is that they aren't made in the time that they are set. If either were made by a southerner in the 60s, they would be be considered fairly progressive despite the having a "white savior". The fact that they are depicted that way in a book that is 9 years old and a movie that is 3 years is what is so problematic, at least for me.

[Wien 401]

Even if you want to talk about it in terms of "white savior" films, The Help is a (highly lauded at 76/90% RT) lame-at-best entry in a psuedo-genre that has given us a WEALTH of delightful gems. I've never read the book, maybe I'll ask my mom about it. She loved the book. But even if the "white savior" aspect was shoehorned in, historically speaking, I am not going to be personally quick to shout it down as being overtly racist. There were plenty of white people in the civil rights movement who did speak out and stand up for equality for blacks, and were murdered for it. The 50s and 60s may not have been that long ago, but it was worlds apart from the situation we live in now. It may seem like a no brainer now to be a part of the civil rights movement, but back then, especially if you were white defending blacks in the deep south, it was serious shit. Sometimes in films like this, the white character is used as a sort of AVATAR (another lame ass white savior movie) for people who ask themselves "if I lived back during the civil rights era, would I stick up for my black friends knowing it could ruin my life if not kill me?"

 

Besides, if we REALLY want to talk about lame ass white savior movies (and I do think that needs to become a tag on FYI if its not already), then how do we escape from The Air Up There?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNbGkNQO70

[robinsbruce 4985]

 

Besides, if we REALLY want to talk about lame ass white savior movies (and I do think that needs to become a tag on FYI if its not already), then how do we escape from The Air Up There?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyNbGkNQO70

 

OOOOOOOOHHHH man. That fucking movie. It's 5 trash cans full of fetid, wet, garbage. I don't know if we should even give it the attention of this podcast.

[wakefresh 689]

http://fyi.earwolf.com/movie/771205918

 

Why the hell would somebody recommend this movie as racist rubbish? Thats REALLY missing the point, there.

 

Anybody want to own this one?

 

I put that movie in when I was testing something for the site. I stand by its inclusion and the tag added to it.

[wakefresh 689]

As I recall there was also an issue in that the woman who wrote the book was sued by the real-life Abeline for basically taking her life's story and not compensating her in any way. I think it was thrown out because of a statute of limitations issue, but it kind of added an ugly undercurrent to the whole thing.

 

This is what really nailed it home for me. This movie is a part of a grand tradition of appropriation that goes on continually in this country. Minority person does something. White person takes it, introduces it to other white people. Black person is ignored. The fact that the writer didn't even want to make things right with this woman further cemented that she didn't really understand the shit she was saying in the book.

[wakefresh 689]

But even if the "white savior" aspect was shoehorned in, historically speaking, I am not going to be personally quick to shout it down as being overtly racist.

 

I don't think you would say anything was racist -- whether the racism be subtle, overt, or inadvertent.

 

Even if you want to talk about it in terms of "white savior" films, The Help is a (highly lauded at 76/90% RT) lame-at-best entry in a psuedo-genre that has given us a WEALTH of delightful gems

 

I would argue all of those movies are adding to the propagation of the myth of white superiority. If black people can't be the heroes in the biggest, most important movement in their own population's history -- the Civil Rights Movement -- then what does that say about black people. Just like what thestray said earlier -- it would be like making movie after movie about feminism but having the main hero be a male. I don't care if one of these shitty as movies had better sound editing than the next, or a better plot than the other. They main premise is the same for all of them, and that's why they are shit.

[imhatch 271]

-- it would be like making movie after movie about feminism but having the main hero be a male.

 

this seems like as good a time as any to mention that there's a movie i just learned of called "women's studies" that is essentially distilled men's rights activism but with a female protagonist in what i assume is their attempt at "what if the REAL sexists...........were feminists!!!"

 

it is totes on netflix idk if i have the patience to make it through it tho

[Wien 401]

 

I don't think you would say anything was racist -- whether the racism be subtle, overt, or inadvertent.

 

 

 

I would argue all of those movies are adding to the propagation of the myth of white superiority. If black people can't be the heroes in the biggest, most important movement in their own population's history -- the Civil Rights Movement -- then what does that say about black people. Just like what thestray said earlier -- it would be like making movie after movie about feminism but having the main hero be a male. I don't care if one of these shitty as movies had better sound editing than the next, or a better plot than the other. They main premise is the same for all of them, and that's why they are shit.

 

You DO realize that, historically speaking, white people HAVE been a part of civil rights protests and actions, right? You DO realize that everything that black people (and other minorities) fought wasn't fought in a raceless vacuum, right? It would be like saying that its absurd to think that a straight person would stand up for gay rights, or have any involvement with the LGBT equality movement, because their involvement somehow deludes the message or makes it irrelevant.

 

This is almost like some form of Super White Guilt, where relevant contributions can't even be hinted at without the idea that its the White Devil™ trying to take all the credit and belittle the minorities struggle.

[sillstaw 414]

You DO realize that, historically speaking, white people HAVE been a part of civil rights protests and actions, right? You DO realize that everything that black people (and other minorities) fought wasn't fought in a raceless vacuum, right? It would be like saying that its absurd to think that a straight person would stand up for gay rights, or have any involvement with the LGBT equality movement, because their involvement somehow deludes the message or makes it irrelevant.

 

This is almost like some form of Super White Guilt, where relevant contributions can't even be hinted at without the idea that its the White Devil™ trying to take all the credit and belittle the minorities struggle.

 

Nobody's saying white people weren't involved. What we're saying is that the way the movies portray it, black people had almost nothing to do with their battles for civil rights. Like it or not, movies are heavily trusted as a kind of history book; playing it like this is like erasing Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. in favor of the white guys in the marches.

[Wien 401]

 

Nobody's saying white people weren't involved. What we're saying is that the way the movies portray it, black people had almost nothing to do with their battles for civil rights. Like it or not, movies are heavily trusted as a kind of history book; playing it like this is like erasing Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. in favor of the white guys in the marches.

 

If you're trusting movies as a history book, that's your problem. Not the movie's. I guess Abraham Lincoln really did have a time about him with those vampires, too.

 

More to the point, and again I must say I haven't read the book, is the nature of the story being told in conjunction with the book. Believe it or not, not every black person was as "militant" as Malcolm X or as openly defiant as MLK. There were plenty who thought it prudent to keep their noses down, their jobs secure, their friends and families safe, and let others do the marching for them. Perhaps this isn't the most heroic portrayal of the struggle (though it would still be in keeping with realism), but I would wonder if it is keeping with the tone and tenor of the book. At its worst, its a shoddy adaptation of an otherwise good book, not a gross misrepresentation and distortion of revisionist history.

[thestray 361]

Dude, seriously, I think you're missing the point entirely.

 

It's not about whether or not individual movies are historically accurate or realistic. Nobody's refuting that white people also played a part in the civil rights movement, and nobody wants to exclude them from stories. The point is that the majority of films about fighting racism are told from a white perspective. Have you not noticed that? White people helped, SURE, TRUE, but why are THEY always the focus of OUR struggle? That doesn't bother you in the slightest? You don't think there's a problem with these movies habitually representing black folk as too timid to do anything for themselves, until a white person comes along to advocate/inspire/educate them? You don't think the constant narrative of a white person's virtue in the face of anti-black racism is a problem, when there are scores of untold stories about black men and women who didn't wait for or need a white person to fight for them? Those black people don't get movies about them (not for lack of people trying to tell their stories either). Those black people are largely omitted from history books. Hollywood has a well-documented aversion to casting non-white leads. And you're sitting here talking about "It has a good rating on Rotten Tomatoes"? Who cares?

 

I would not have a problem with movies like The Help if they were an anomaly. If the white savior was the exception, not the rule. I would not mind seeing a white person stand with black people if they weren't always the central focus or the agents of change. Like Shariq put it, all these movies do is enforce the myth of white superiority, because any time we see a movie about racism it's 9 times out of 10 centered around a virtuous white person, and makes it look like black people were just doing what they were told until the pure noble white person came around and changed things. That's just not how that shit went down, and if you don't know that you have a lot of reading to do.

 

Here's the thing about historical accuracy. You can be historically accurate and still only tell the side of the story you want shown. That's called whitewashing. You can tell a true accurate story and still leave out all the important and meaningful details. It then becomes a lie of omission. We see movie after movie of the altruistic white man saving people of color, but what's being omitted are all the people of color who fought for themselves. And constantly depicting people of color as passive in their own struggles is a really problematic dangerous thing to put out there into a culture that already thinks racism is just a thing of the past, minorities are whiny, and white people are the true victims in today's world. Yeah, some black people back then were too afraid to fight and thought it better to keep their nose down, but is THAT what we need to see over and over again? A movie about black maids in the 1960's just would not get made if there wasn't an Emma Stone character in there to placate white Hollywood studio execs. It just wouldn't. That's not a coincidence, and it's not because of "historical accuracy", it's because it's the way people who decide what movies get made want it.

 

It matters. The narratives we perpetuate matter. Movies perpetuate the narrative that white people are always the heroes, even when the fight is not their own. White people, and Will Smith.

[Wien 401]

thestray, on 11 May 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

 

Dude, seriously, I think you're missing the point entirely.

 

 

It's not about whether or not individual movies are historically accurate or realistic. Nobody's refuting that white people also played a part in the civil rights movement, and nobody wants to exclude them from stories. The point is that the majority of films about fighting racism are told from a white perspective. Have you not noticed that? White people helped, SURE, TRUE, but why are THEY always the focus of OUR struggle? That doesn't bother you in the slightest? You don't think there's a problem with these movies habitually representing black folk as too timid to do anything for themselves, until a white person comes along to advocate/inspire/educate them? You don't think the constant narrative of a white person's virtue in the face of anti-black racism is a problem, when there are scores of untold stories about black men and women who didn't wait for or need a white person to fight for them? Those black people don't get movies about them (not for lack of people trying to tell their stories either). Those black people are largely omitted from history books. Hollywood has a well-documented aversion to casting non-white leads. And you're sitting here talking about "It has a good rating on Rotten Tomatoes"? Who cares?

 

I would not have a problem with movies like The Help if they were an anomaly. If the white savior was the exception, not the rule. I would not mind seeing a white person stand with black people if they weren't always the central focus or the agents of change. Like Shariq put it, all these movies do is enforce the myth of white superiority, because any time we see a movie about racism it's 9 times out of 10 centered around a virtuous white person, and makes it look like black people were just doing what they were told until the pure noble white person came around and changed things. That's just not how that shit went down, and if you don't know that you have a lot of reading to do.

 

Here's the thing about historical accuracy. You can be historically accurate and still only tell the side of the story you want shown. That's called whitewashing. You can tell a true accurate story and still leave out all the important and meaningful details. It then becomes a lie of omission. We see movie after movie of the altruistic white man saving people of color, but what's being omitted are all the people of color who fought for themselves. And constantly depicting people of color as passive in their own struggles is a really problematic dangerous thing to put out there into a culture that already thinks racism is just a thing of the past, minorities are whiny, and white people are the true victims in today's world. Yeah, some black people back then were too afraid to fight and thought it better to keep their nose down, but is THAT what we need to see over and over again? A movie about black maids in the 1960's just would not get made if there wasn't an Emma Stone character in there to placate white Hollywood studio execs. It just wouldn't. That's not a coincidence, and it's not because of "historical accuracy", it's because it's the way people who decide what movies get made want it.

 

It matters. The narratives we perpetuate matter. Movies perpetuate the narrative that white people are always the heroes, even when the fight is not their own. White people, and Will Smith.

 

1. "The point is that the majority of films about fighting racism are told from a white perspective. Have you not noticed that? White people helped, SURE, TRUE, but why are THEY always the focus of OUR struggle?"

 

If I wanted to be a jackass about this, I could copy/paste a cornucopia of literary and theatrical examples of where white people aren't the saviors. I'll just trust you know what these examples are already and chock this up to extended, erratic hyperbole.

 

2. Again, when talking in specific terms about this movie, I only can speak to the contents of the film. Its intent in its message can only be as malicious as it is perceived. Its funny, because I was raised for a large portion of my life in Japan, so when The Last Samurai came out, I laughed at the notion of Tom Cruise in a savior role. It didn't stop me from enjoying the film. Hell I found it rather enjoyable, all the way through that ridiculous ending where the white guy was the only one impervious to a howitzer. It never diminished my experience with the rest of the film, I simply took it in as a movie to entertain, not a teaching tool of the end of the Meiji era. If I examined the world of entertainment in THOSE terms, I would be satisfied by nothing. There is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from reading/making/watching films or books on lesser told tales. It makes no sense to use a movie like The Help to get on some epic soap box to condemn people not having ever heard about the Springfield Lynchings or whatever other litany of examples may exist. The central point of contention seems, to me, to be "Why are white people the focus of black struggle, it diminishes the role of blacks and is not historically accurate!". To which my counter point was only to say "It IS historically accurate, depending on what example of history you wish to pluck from". The inherit problem with this misplaced rage is that you are focusing it on an intensely minuscule, random, isolated, oh and by the way largely fictional abstraction. What about movies that ARE historically accurate and based on non-fiction? What weight do those pieces have against something like The Help? I submit; NOTHING, and vice versa is the same as well.

 

As an aside; we're talking about a film that is only being discussed because it was put up on a site that prominently displays its Rotten Tomatoes score (to serve as some barometer to a movie's potential worth to THIS COMEDY PODCAST, READ: NOT "REAL TALK WITH TAVIS SMILEY") as well as its own Trash Can and Hash Tag metrics for measuring the films worth to the show. You want to know why I mention RT? Well... <-----

 

3. Your definition of whitewash is a bit off, so let me help you out a bit;

Quote

 

anything,asdeceptivewordsoractions, used tocoveruporglossoverfaults,errors,or wrongdoings,orabsolveawrongdoerfromblame.

 

 

Whitewashing is different from what you claim that revisionist history does. Omitting information is not inherently deceptive; for starters, you'd have to identify intent. Sometimes information is omitted simply because the author just flat out doesn't know about it. Whitewashing is an active feat of deception typically to achieve some ends. If what you are saying is that there are movies that are actively attempting to undermine and rewrite American history with an intent on diminishing black roles and expanding white roles... well, you won't get an argument from me on that. The point of my argument has always been limited to this movie, and in THESE SPECIFIC TERMS:

 

1. In regards to its application for use in a comedy podcast based on Bad Movies, I don't think The Help reaches the criteria that we typically see on this show. The film, for all intents and purposes, and perhaps in spite of some people's cultural objections to it, is widely regarded as a good movie.

 

2. The tag "#racistrubbish" being applied flippantly to the film could mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Knowing what we know about the bad movies they do on this, again, COMEDY PODCAST, accusations of racism usually comes from more evident and extreme displays of buffoonery, ham-fistedness, or just flat out supremacistic. Whatever the perceived racism of The Help, I could not fit into those categories myself. More to the point...

 

3. The reaction of my concerns on the response to this film seems to deal way more with what people perceive to be the message of the movie rather than the actual content or execution of the film. I reference the RT scores again because we are using this as a basis to choose a film for this NOT-CORNEL-WEST-HOSTED COMEDY PODCAST. Arguing about the message of "white savior" as an appropriate entryway into this film seemed flimsy at best to me. This isn't even a very strong example of white saviorism (Dangerous Minds anyone? Sunset Park??).

 

And you know what? You're probably right. A movie about black maids likely wouldn't have been made if Emma Stone wasn't in it. To the author's credit, it likely wouldn't have happened also if the book hadn't been a New York Times best seller. If you want to talk about differences between the book and the film, in order to get the film greenlit and made, be my guest. Like I said, I never read it so I don't know. Sometimes I think that people look at the wrong things when trying to find a target for their rage. I mean seriously, a property's propensity to sell is what drives how things are made more than some perceived nefarious plot to "get the black man!" I mean shit, Precious got made, right? A movie about a fat black girl, I mean who cares right?? The Jackie Robinson biopic got made, right? I'm not even sure if people these days even remember who he is! But they get made, and if your gripe is that there aren't enough, or they aren't being made respectfully enough, then perhaps you should be directing your ire towards the studios funding Transformers (and CC Oprah on that, too) rather than a Bad Movie Comedy Podcast directed towards a generally good movie because you don't like how the white lady was portrayed.

 

And if all you're watching are movies where white people are always the heroes, then perhaps you need to broaden your Netflix queue (or stop watching whats on Netflix altogether). Those movies do exist too, beyond Will Smith.

 

I've gone on too long, my food has gotten cold, and my Star Trek Next Generation marathon was put on pause for far more than my liking. This is the last I'll speak on this topic, for sho'.

[pbnews 93]

Hell I found it rather enjoyable, all the way through that ridiculous ending where the white guy was the only one impervious to a howitzer. It never diminished my experience with the rest of the film, I simply took it in as a movie to entertain, not a teaching tool of the end of the Meiji era.

 

You had me at Hell I.

[thestray 361]

Wien - I did not champion this film to be included on the show. I don't think it's a good suggestion for HDTGM at all, I don't really think it would make for a good episode. I never argued that it would make a good HDTGM episode. I only made the point that this movie exists as part of a pattern in Hollywood to frame white people as agents of change in movies about racism. If you still think no such pattern exists and that this isn't an example of it... maybe it's just something you're never going to see because you don't want to see it.

 

But thank you for taking the time to make every classic argument white people make in an effort to downplay the latent racism that permeates our media and culture.

 

"The intention wasn't to be racist! Therefore it's not racist! The message was not racism sheesh!"

It doesn't matter. You and every other apologist for racism like to think that only willful conscious intentional racism is the only kind of racism that matters. That nothing can be called racist unless you can "prove" that someone was trying to be racist on purpose. It doesn't matter if it was on purpose. It doesn't matter what the intent was. People not knowing they're doing something racist doesn't change the impact of their racism. But I think you're a little naive if you think there's not a deliberate effort within Hollywood to make sure a white person is front and center of any movie they want white audiences to see.

 

"Oh yeah? What about all these other examples that AREN'T like what you're complaining about?!"

It doesn't matter. You and every other apologist for racism like to think that a racist pattern can only be established if it happens 100% of the time. Any time someone points out a problematic pattern someone is quick to point out all the times it doesn't happen. That's like saying the police predominantly pulling over minorities can't be racist because white people get pulled over too. No man. If something happens frequently enough to be a noticeable pattern, it's a pattern. It doesn't have to happen all of the time, it doesn't even have to happen most of the time. It just has to happen enough times to realize that it's not coincidence. And you're depressingly naive if you think the many occurrences in film of white people being the hero in films about the struggles of people of color is just some innocent coincidence.

 

"Sometimes I think that people look at the wrong things when trying to find a target for their rage. I mean seriously, a property's propensity to sell is what drives how things are made more than some perceived nefarious plot to "get the black man!" blah blah blah list of good black movies."

NICE! Again, you and every other apologist likes to frame any black person who so much as hints at the possibility that there is any racism or imbalance in how people of color are portrayed, as just some angry irrational black person mad for no reason just LOOKING for something to direct their anger at. You're mind numbingly naive if you think 42 and Precious and any other example you want to throw out just cancels out anything else that's dubious.

 

Of course you have a hard time recognizing racism if you're still operating under that super lenient definition of it that clueless white people use. Racism isn't just Klan members burning crosses and using slurs, racism largely isn't that overt anymore. If you think that I think The Help or movies that follow the same pattern are part of a conscious effort to "Get the black man!" then you understand so little of what I'm saying and what racism is.

 

I'm not saying you can't like The Help. I'm not saying it's a terrible movie in it's own right. But I'd be blind to see that it's not part of a tradition of how people of color's struggles are depicted in mainstream movies. I'd recommend reading Reel Racism by Vincent Rocchio, and Reel to Real by Bell Hooks if you're still having trouble understanding that there are still very problematic tropes in American cinema. Read those books, then get back to me. Or not. This has turned out way more contentious then I thought it would. I'll peace out now.

[jarrycanada 2483]

This is one of those pat on the back oscer movies, i tried to watch once and never got all the way to the ending. every year some stuiped movie with Emma Stone gets nominaed but never wins. it was the same trick with easy a and guest what that sucked too. GRRR.

 

I like to try and watch all of the oscer movies each year before the show.

[sillstaw 414]

This is one of those pat on the back oscer movies, i tried to watch once and never got all the way to the ending. every year some stuiped movie with Emma Stone gets nominaed but never wins. it was the same trick with easy a and guest what that sucked too. GRRR.

 

Huh. I didn't really think "Easy A" was trying to be an awards-bait movie so much as it was a teen sex comedy (that, from all appearances, talked more about sex than had any characters having it, or even trying to have it). But I do agree that it wasn't good; I couldn't make it past 20 minutes in due to the raging quirkiness and the screenwriter's constant need to show off how much he knew about movies.

[seanotron 2307]

I am pretty sure Easy A was not award bait. Nor was it nominated for much of anything.