Jump to content
🔒 The Earwolf Forums are closed Read more... ×
JulyDiaz

Episode 192 - Striptease: LIVE!

Recommended Posts

 

To be fair, she wasn't suing because she spilled her coffee. She was suing because the coffee was served too hot (190 degrees). When she spilled her coffee, it caused third degree burns which required hospitalization and skin grafts. She also only sought money for her medical expenses and time lost from work (approx $18,000). McDonalds only offered her $800. That's why she sued. She didn't make millions off of the deal, either.

 

Cam and I aren't saying the lawsuit isn't frivolous. We're just saying he's probably going to lose.

 

There's actually a really interesting documentary about this case called Hot Coffee. They showed pictures of her burns and it's horrific. They went down to the bone. She wasn't even in a moving car when she spilled this coffee and this particular McDonald's had been told before they made their coffee too hot on another occasion. You wouldn't think a movie about tort reform (basically trying to cap how much someone can get for bringing civil wrong law suits and make it harder to bring them etc) would be interesting to watch but I had fun and was VERY angry for everyone involved.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I was at this show, and I just wanted to pop in to say that during June's moment, Paul and Jason basically put their mics down the whole time. No one was waiting to jump in (they are better than this, of course, but some comedians would...). Anyway I just wanted to say that it really struck me as a powerful visual. Made me love HDTGM even more.

i was also at the show and I want to add the the audience was 100% with June and it was a great moment to be a part of

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Okay I want to clarify I didn't bring up the McD's woman to trivialize her experience (it may have come across as so) but rather to say that I can see why Shad would think that this idea that finding a bug in his food could get him something. Obviously millions is out of the question, but there are more than just the real story about the woman spilling hot coffee on her where people win suits like this. Someone found a rat in the mix of their KFC chicken and won, someone found a full finger in their Wendy's chili and won, and it would appear that finding a full roach in his yogurt could have possible given Shad something as well.

 

So my point stands that in his defense people have won their suits in similar cases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Because everyone, from June on the show to taylor anne photo to Ryan Sz. to EvRobert to Cam Bert to Cameron H., have eviscerated this movie on its merits better than I could, I decided to try to take a different tack and tackle how the representation of the human form in art, as a means of simultaneous reverence and titillation, has a long and fascinating history (from classical art to comic books), and how this film utterly fails to meet that in any respect.

 

But then I decided to say "fuck it" because I am not an art historian and I didn't want to make assertions that I am not qualified to make (I mean, I guess I could talk about the sexism/power dynamics in the representation of the female vs. male form in comics, but that is a conversation for another time). So let me just say that this film is an utter failure even based on pure aesthetics because it's a movie about Demi Moore, an astonishingly attractive woman, dancing naked and it remains entirely UNsexy. There is at least twice as much sexiness in the Patrick Swayze/Chris Farley Chippendales SNL sketch than this garbage. Maybe that's because the sketch is not dehumanizing the very dancers we are supposed to find sexy, but rather showing them in their element, doing what they love to do, and doing it well. While this film shows a naked woman being strangled by a snake because, "haha, this bitch is getting choked while she's naked. HILARIOUS."

 

Fuck this movie.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Because everyone, from June on the show to taylor anne photo to Ryan Sz. to EvRobert to Cam Bert to Cameron H., have eviscerated this movie on its merits better than I could

 

Extra! Extra! Quasar Sniffer to Paul, Jason, and the rest of the boards:

 

tenor.gif

 

 

j/k Quasar. As always, you're too kind.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

 

Extra! Extra! Quasar Sniffer to Paul, Jason, and the rest of the boards:

 

tenor.gif

 

 

j/k Quasar. As always, you're too kind.

 

 

Fitting, since, like the characters in The Good Place, I also spend every second I exist in a Sisyphean search for meaning in a universe ruled by faceless entropy. BUT AT LEAST I GOT THIS PODCAST RIGHT?!?!

 

Even so, Cameron, it is you who is the kind one!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Okay I want to clarify I didn't bring up the McD's woman to trivialize her experience (it may have come across as so) but rather to say that I can see why Shad would think that this idea that finding a bug in his food could get him something. Obviously millions is out of the question, but there are more than just the real story about the woman spilling hot coffee on her where people win suits like this. Someone found a rat in the mix of their KFC chicken and won, someone found a full finger in their Wendy's chili and won, and it would appear that finding a full roach in his yogurt could have possible given Shad something as well.

 

So my point stands that in his defense people have won their suits in similar cases.

 

Oh no I figured you weren't trivializing it I was just shocked by how bad it was. Like I have heard the term 3rd degree burns but I had no idea what it actually meant. I know I read a few years ago a woman found a whole mouse in a jar of peanut butter. I don't know if she sued or not. I can understand why Shad would think he could win big with something like this but the way he goes about it is very stupid. I wonder why he wanted to go with a cockroach of all things. Like did he try it out with other insects or critters and find the cockroach worked best or was it always his plan to use a cockroach?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

But then I decided to say "fuck it" because I am not an art historian and I didn't want to make assertions that I am not qualified to make (I mean, I guess I could talk about the sexism/power dynamics in the representation of the female vs. male form in comics, but that is a conversation for another time).

Omg Quasar I didn't think of bringing my minor into this but I definitely could lmao. The "Madonna-Whore" complex is famously identified as being "created" by Freud and people genuinely think that it was only around his time that women began to be portrayed in only two ways but in actuality has been a thing in art for hundreds and hundreds of years. (Personally I kinda think Freud is a hack anyway but I'm not gonna get into that today.)

 

Towards the beginning of records of human life some of the earliest findings of art we have are of women, and typically they are seen as givers of life. The mostly are fertility statues of large women with large breasts and they are seen as the ultimate signs of life, and are respected as very beautiful. It wasn't that that was the only way women were seen, but rather they were seen with respect. I've seen some try and say that these are the ultimate variations of the "Madonna" but I disagree with them as did my Women in Art professor, because like I said, it wasn't that they were respected for their virtue but for their ability to give life. I think that because the "Madonna" is Mary then people do equate motherhood with that, but back in those times that's not how they were seen at all.

 

It was when religion, namely Christianity, became the subject of so many pieces of art that you really and truly see this come into play. Suddenly every piece of art is about how women were corrupted by Satan and then corrupt men themselves, or it's about the Virgin Mary and how she is the ultimate idol for women to look up to. And after these times the snowball effect happens and everyone's view of women becomes affected by how they are presented in these master paintings. It even gets to the point where depictions of women in art are so shamed that the only women who would model for paintings were sex workers (or ballet dancers but during the age of Degas they were considered only one step above sex workers so they were heavily disrespected themselves).

 

As we move off of paintings being our sole representation for women, we see how this idea of "Madonna and the whore" has stuck around, because for hundreds of years it has been hammered into our way of thinking. So we have Demi Moore playing a woman that wants to be looked at as the Madonna and wrestles with the idea of being considered a whore, but there is a refusal that she can be both or that there doesn't have to be this 0-60 mindset.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Oh no I figured you weren't trivializing it I was just shocked by how bad it was. Like I have heard the term 3rd degree burns but I had no idea what it actually meant. I know I read a few years ago a woman found a whole mouse in a jar of peanut butter. I don't know if she sued or not. I can understand why Shad would think he could win big with something like this but the way he goes about it is very stupid. I wonder why he wanted to go with a cockroach of all things. Like did he try it out with other insects or critters and find the cockroach worked best or was it always his plan to use a cockroach?

Maybe it seemed like the most likely to get in there? One time about 15 years or so ago we went to a Luby's (a cafeteria style restaurant here in North Texas) and my aunt found a full blown roach in my baby cousin's food. We didn't sue but that was definitely the last time anyone in our family ever went there. Apparently I'm the only one who was scarred enough to remember because neither my mom nor my aunt remember this happening but I was so disgusted I never forgot, and it wasn't even in my dish.

 

Also when I was 10 I endured 2nd degree burns from something spilling out of a TV dinner onto my leg and I swear my mom still talks about how she wishes she had sued, but we didn't. It was perfectly in that spot where the knee was so I couldn't bend it without it hurting so I had to walk on crutches for a week. I did my best to properly take care of it so that it wouldn't leave a terrible scar (including putting fish oil onto the wound for months) and I'm happy to say that you really can only see the evidence in the exact right lighting. Otherwise you would never know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Am I the only person that passed (mild) judgment on Erin for walking away and leaving the lint trap full? I always felt like it was rude to leave it behind for the next person to deal with.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I want to talk about cause of death - for the cockroach.

 

Based on the care Shad employs to place the cockroach in the yogurt, he seems to want to make it look like it died from natural causes. This makes sense, of course, as if foul play is suspected it might ruin his chances of his huge payout. As he’s probably anticipating some sort of insect autopsy to be performed, he definitely can’t use pesticides and stepping on it would leave too much physical evidence. I really like the idea that might have used a tiny garrote, but who knows, that might have trace evidence, as well.

 

So I guess my question is, do you think Shad pre-drowned his roaches in yogurt to make it look like an accident?

 

And don’t think it escapes me that, if this is the case, it mirrors the exact cause of death of Stalker Jerry.

 

This movie - it’s just wheels within wheels.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

taylor, I love everything about your post. LET'S GET INTO IT!

 

Omg Quasar I didn't think of bringing my minor into this but I definitely could lmao. The "Madonna-Whore" complex is famously identified as being "created" by Freud and people genuinely think that it was only around his time that women began to be portrayed in only two ways but in actuality has been a thing in art for hundreds and hundreds of years. (Personally I kinda think Freud is a hack anyway but I'm not gonna get into that today.)

 

Towards the beginning of records of human life some of the earliest findings of art we have are of women, and typically they are seen as givers of life. The mostly are fertility statues of large women with large breasts and they are seen as the ultimate signs of life, and are respected as very beautiful. It wasn't that that was the only way women were seen, but rather they were seen with respect. I've seen some try and say that these are the ultimate variations of the "Madonna" but I disagree with them as did my Women in Art professor, because like I said, it wasn't that they were respected for their virtue but for their ability to give life. I think that because the "Madonna" is Mary then people do equate motherhood with that, but back in those times that's not how they were seen at all.

I've been interested in the ancient fertility goddess/symbol for years, as I am with a lot of older or even proto-mytholgies. I even wrote several issues of a comic book (speaking of that art form) in which the goddess Ishtar comes across a group of Napoleonic-era Navy sailors and the cultural, poltical, and religious convolutions that would result from such a meeting. Ishtar, to me, is an interesting diety because she has some of the life-giving aspects of the fertility goddess, but also some of the romanticized sexuality of a goddess like Aphrodite. And with Aphrodite, you have imagery like the Venus di Milo, in which a physical form is presented in all it's beauty with no baggage of having to be a Madonna or a Whote. As for Ishtar, she's a bridge between the very ancient and the beginnings of what we consider civilization, so my story idea has her encounter the manifestation of civilization run amok; namely militarized colonialism.

 

ANYWAY

 

It was when religion, namely Christianity, became the subject of so many pieces of art that you really and truly see this come into play. Suddenly every piece of art is about how women were corrupted by Satan and then corrupt men themselves, or it's about the Virgin Mary and how she is the ultimate idol for women to look up to. And after these times the snowball effect happens and everyone's view of women becomes affected by how they are presented in these master paintings. It even gets to the point where depictions of women in art are so shamed that the only women who would model for paintings were sex workers (or ballet dancers but during the age of Degas they were considered only one step above sex workers so they were heavily disrespected themselves).

Did that start with artsts of Degas's era and the other Impressionists? Because it seems like if you look at a lot of the Italian Renaissance painters or even the Dutch Masters, there's this almost veneration of the female form in portraiture, or at least of the face. I know a lot of that was in religious art (so of course you have the Madonna aspect show up there), and there was a lot of batshit crazy stuff along with representations of the Whore persona as well, but it didn't seem to be so bifurcated pre-19th or 18th Century. It's also always struck me as tragically fitting that the Impressionists were supposed to be striking against the old guard schools of strict representation, so of course their subjects would be equally reviled by greater society as their art was. Of course, the women were more vulnerable to the consequence of their lifestyle and the reaction the powers that be might have to them.

 

As we move off of paintings being our sole representation for women, we see how this idea of "Madonna and the whore" has stuck around, because for hundreds of years it has been hammered into our way of thinking. So we have Demi Moore playing a woman that wants to be looked at as the Madonna and wrestles with the idea of being considered a whore, but there is a refusal that she can be both or that there doesn't have to be this 0-60 mindset.

That insight just makes me hate this movie more, I guess. It's playing into this 3,000 year old power dynamic that it could instead be rebelling against. It could, like Degas, turn a reviled social class like dancers into objects of beauty, something to venerate and hang in a museum. Instead, we get the movie version of a truckstop billboard screaming LIVE NUDES, 30 MINUTE OIL CHANGE off the side of the highway.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Someone found a rat in the mix of their KFC chicken and won, someone found a full finger in their Wendy's chili and won, and it would appear that finding a full roach in his yogurt could have possible given Shad something as well.

 

Was there another Wendy's finger story? Because I thought it was revealed that in that case it was a setup by the person suing and a friend of theirs who had legitimately chopped off their finger, but in a separate incident, but I could be mistaken.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Was there another Wendy's finger story? Because I thought it was revealed that in that case it was a setup by the person suing and a friend of theirs who had legitimately chopped off their finger, but in a separate incident, but I could be mistaken.

Oh shit no I don't think I ever heard the end of that story! Tbh the idea of it grossed me out so much I blocked all mention from sites lol.

 

Now I'm wondering if Striptease has been inspiring an entire generation of food hoaxes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

taylor, I love everything about your post. LET'S GET INTO IT!

 

 

I've been interested in the ancient fertility goddess/symbol for years, as I am with a lot of older or even proto-mytholgies. I even wrote several issues of a comic book (speaking of that art form) in which the goddess Ishtar comes across a group of Napoleonic-era Navy sailors and the cultural, poltical, and religious convolutions that would result from such a meeting. Ishtar, to me, is an interesting diety because she has some of the life-giving aspects of the fertility goddess, but also some of the romanticized sexuality of a goddess like Aphrodite. And with Aphrodite, you have imagery like the Venus di Milo, in which a physical form is presented in all it's beauty with no baggage of having to be a Madonna or a Whote. As for Ishtar, she's a bridge between the very ancient and the beginnings of what we consider civilization, so my story idea has her encounter the manifestation of civilization run amok; namely militarized colonialism.

I would read the shit out of that just FYI.

 

ANYWAY

 

 

Did that start with artsts of Degas's era and the other Impressionists? Because it seems like if you look at a lot of the Italian Renaissance painters or even the Dutch Masters, there's this almost veneration of the female form in portraiture, or at least of the face. I know a lot of that was in religious art (so of course you have the Madonna aspect show up there), and there was a lot of batshit crazy stuff along with representations of the Whore persona as well, but it didn't seem to be so bifurcated pre-19th or 18th Century. It's also always struck me as tragically fitting that the Impressionists were supposed to be striking against the old guard schools of strict representation, so of course their subjects would be equally reviled by greater society as their art was. Of course, the women were more vulnerable to the consequence of their lifestyle and the reaction the powers that be might have to them.

I'll have to admit I'm not totally positive I'm sure which "that" you're referring to but I'm assuming it's the ballerina's? To which I honestly am not 100% about, but I learned specifically about Degas when our professor started asking us who our favorite artists were and then told us all a story about how they actually kinda suck lol. I picked Degas and learned he basically used women for his selfish gain and hung out primarily with the ballerinas because they were just a step above sex workers at the time so he didn't have to totally tarnish his image for his paintings and sex.

 

But I also think you mean women in art and the dichotomy of madonna and whore? In that case, I also can't say with 100% all knowing fact, but there is so much evidence going as far back as the 4th century. Here's a fun image of Mary and Jesus from Rome dating that very century!

 

VirgenNino.jpg

 

I didn't even know about Picasso and all of his bull shit until Hannah Gadsby's special on Netflix. We briefly touched on his art style, yes, but no one ever got into his life like some others. I bet if I had majored in Art History rather than minored I would have eventually found it all out.

 

That insight just makes me hate this movie more, I guess. It's playing into this 3,000 year old power dynamic that it could instead be rebelling against. It could, like Degas, turn a reviled social class like dancers into objects of beauty, something to venerate and hang in a museum. Instead, we get the movie version of a truckstop billboard screaming LIVE NUDES, 30 MINUTE OIL CHANGE off the side of the highway.

Yup. It's why I'm very much all aboard the "representation matters!" train because there's so much genuine history that shows the weight of how we look at people in the media we're presented.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Omg Quasar I didn't think of bringing my minor into this but I definitely could lmao. The "Madonna-Whore" complex is famously identified as being "created" by Freud and people genuinely think that it was only around his time that women began to be portrayed in only two ways but in actuality has been a thing in art for hundreds and hundreds of years. (Personally I kinda think Freud is a hack anyway but I'm not gonna get into that today.)

 

Towards the beginning of records of human life some of the earliest findings of art we have are of women, and typically they are seen as givers of life. The mostly are fertility statues of large women with large breasts and they are seen as the ultimate signs of life, and are respected as very beautiful. It wasn't that that was the only way women were seen, but rather they were seen with respect. I've seen some try and say that these are the ultimate variations of the "Madonna" but I disagree with them as did my Women in Art professor, because like I said, it wasn't that they were respected for their virtue but for their ability to give life. I think that because the "Madonna" is Mary then people do equate motherhood with that, but back in those times that's not how they were seen at all.

 

It was when religion, namely Christianity, became the subject of so many pieces of art that you really and truly see this come into play. Suddenly every piece of art is about how women were corrupted by Satan and then corrupt men themselves, or it's about the Virgin Mary and how she is the ultimate idol for women to look up to. And after these times the snowball effect happens and everyone's view of women becomes affected by how they are presented in these master paintings. It even gets to the point where depictions of women in art are so shamed that the only women who would model for paintings were sex workers (or ballet dancers but during the age of Degas they were considered only one step above sex workers so they were heavily disrespected themselves).

 

As we move off of paintings being our sole representation for women, we see how this idea of "Madonna and the whore" has stuck around, because for hundreds of years it has been hammered into our way of thinking. So we have Demi Moore playing a woman that wants to be looked at as the Madonna and wrestles with the idea of being considered a whore, but there is a refusal that she can be both or that there doesn't have to be this 0-60 mindset.

 

Stop making me fall in love with you

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I would read the shit out of that just FYI.

 

 

I'll have to admit I'm not totally positive I'm sure which "that" you're referring to but I'm assuming it's the ballerina's? To which I honestly am not 100% about, but I learned specifically about Degas when our professor started asking us who our favorite artists were and then told us all a story about how they actually kinda suck lol. I picked Degas and learned he basically used women for his selfish gain and hung out primarily with the ballerinas because they were just a step above sex workers at the time so he didn't have to totally tarnish his image for his paintings and sex.

 

But I also think you mean women in art and the dichotomy of madonna and whore? In that case, I also can't say with 100% all knowing fact, but there is so much evidence going as far back as the 4th century. Here's a fun image of Mary and Jesus from Rome dating that very century!

 

VirgenNino.jpg

 

I didn't even know about Picasso and all of his bull shit until Hannah Gadsby's special on Netflix. We briefly touched on his art style, yes, but no one ever got into his life like some others. I bet if I had majored in Art History rather than minored I would have eventually found it all out.

 

 

Yup. It's why I'm very much all aboard the "representation matters!" train because there's so much genuine history that shows the weight of how we look at people in the media we're presented.

 

Picasso was a fucking MONSTER. I found this article last year about him and i have b never been the same since: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2017/11/09/how-picasso-bled-the-women-in-his-life-for-art/

It's a lot but it's so intense i'm just gonna copt past the first part of the artile here because each sentence is more awful then the next I bolded the ones I found the worst:

 

Sixteen years ago, Marina Picasso, one of Pablo Picasso’s granddaughters, became the first family member to go public about how much her family had suffered under the artist’s narcissism. “No one in my family ever managed to escape from the stranglehold of this genius,” she wrote in her memoir, Picasso: My Grandfather. “He needed blood to sign each of his paintings: my father’s blood, my brother’s, my mother’s, my grandmother’s, and mine. He needed the blood of those who loved him.”

 

After Jacqueline Roque, Picasso’s second wife, barred much of the family from the artist’s funeral, the family fell fully to pieces: Pablito, Picasso’s grandson, drank a bottle of bleach and died; Paulo, Picasso’s son, died of deadly alcoholism born of depression. Marie-Thérèse Walter, Picasso’s young lover between his first wife, Olga Khokhlova, and his next mistress, Dora Maar, later hanged herself; even Roque eventually fatally shot herself.“Women are machines for suffering,” Picasso told Françoise Gilot, his mistress after Maar. After they embarked on their affair when he was sixty-one and she was twenty-one, he warned Gilot of his feelings once more: “For me there are only two kinds of women: goddesses and doormats.” Marina saw her grandfather’s treatment of women as an even darker phenomenon, a vital part of his creative process: “He submitted them to his animal sexuality, tamed them, bewitched them, ingested them, and crushed them onto his canvas. After he had spent many nights extracting their essence, once they were bled dry, he would dispose of them.”

 

It's a fascinating article because it also talks about how many of the works at this particular exhibition that the are of his daughter Maya and how tender this work is and how she is one of the few women in his orbit to sort of survive her association with him relativity unscathed as it were. But how also even she was used for his art and his drive and stuff.

 

Honestly so many "great" male artists be they writers, painter's, or sculptors, whatever are just garbage human beings and we all let it go because "THE ART!" Not just that but for every great male artist there are women in his life who helped make him great. So many male authors literally stole full on word for word from their female relatives diaries or their conversations.Fitzgerald is the one who comes easiest to mind. When not stealing ideas or full on phrases you have people like Tolstoy making his wife write out War and Peace SEVEN TIMES BY HAND. I can't even imagine typing War and Peace on a laptop much less writing it out longhand seven times at night with only a few candles to see and a magnifying glass to read Leo's notes.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sixteen years ago, Marina Picasso, one of Pablo Picasso’s granddaughters, became the first family member to go public about how much her family had suffered under the artist’s narcissism. “No one in my family ever managed to escape from the stranglehold of this genius,” she wrote in her memoir, Picasso: My Grandfather. “He needed blood to sign each of his paintings: my father’s blood, my brother’s, my mother’s, my grandmother’s, and mine. He needed the blood of those who loved him.”

I think Anne Geddes did the same thing for all of those terrifying baby photos.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am a little baffled that people are fixating on how gross the entire situation is concerning the custody battle (and some of the other issues as well).

 

When the judge mentions "he was a good football player" that indicates to me that this is 100% supposed to poke fun at/reinforce the "good ole boys" network. As an audience we aren"t supposed to accept that, we're supposed to immiately get that the system is rigged against her.

 

People seem to think the movie is glorifying or justifying the grossness, but it seems blatantly obvious to me they're leaning in to the unfair aituation she is put in. They may not execute it very well but it seems like this movie is more self-aware than people believe,

 

If anyone has read any Carl Hiaasen this is even more obvious.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm playing catch up with my podcasts this week, but since americancrank above brought up Carl Hiaasen, I thought I might as well chime in. Earlier in the thread, several posters mentioned that they would have preferred if Erin was a former FBI agent or a former detective instead of "just" a secretary. I haven't read Striptease, but I've read a few of his later novels and one of the repeating themes includes a regular, normal person being unwittingly mired in a dastardly plot or criminal activity (often involving the environment) and have to sort of work themselves out of it by being clever and resourceful. So I could see why Erin wasn't in law enforcement to begin with. Also, there's a fair amount of wry humor in his books, and I assume that failed to translate well onto the screen in Striptease.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm playing catch up with my podcasts this week, but since americancrank above brought up Carl Hiaasen, I thought I might as well chime in. Earlier in the thread, several posters mentioned that they would have preferred if Erin was a former FBI agent or a former detective instead of "just" a secretary. I haven't read Striptease, but I've read a few of his later novels and one of the repeating themes includes a regular, normal person being unwittingly mired in a dastardly plot or criminal activity (often involving the environment) and have to sort of work themselves out of it by being clever and resourceful. So I could see why Erin wasn't in law enforcement to begin with. Also, there's a fair amount of wry humor in his books, and I assume that failed to translate well onto the screen in Striptease.

I was part of that back and forth and definitely am not knocking on the fact that she was a secretary! There seems to be a lot missing between points A and B from when she leaves that court house to when she gets to that club that just don't connect for me personally that would make more sense if she were a disgraced detective or even undercover like Cameron mentioned.

 

Like I kept waiting for her to actually do her own detective work... Oh man like what if that cop actually was convinced she had something to do with Jerry's murder, since this movie is just one set up against her after another, and she actually has to go and solve everything on her own because no one will listen to her? Everything about the movie can stay the same up until Jerry dies and then we get a better look at how clever and resourceful she is. Because as this movie currently stands I really only think we see her use her own wits at the very end.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
I was part of that back and forth and definitely am not knocking on the fact that she was a secretary! There seems to be a lot missing between points A and B from when she leaves that court house to when she gets to that club that just don't connect for me personally that would make more sense if she were a disgraced detective or even undercover like Cameron mentioned.

 

No, I didn't think anyone was knocking her for being a secretary. I put the quotes on "just" a secretary because that's what the movie seemed to be emphasizing.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

No, I didn't think anyone was knocking her for being a secretary. I put the quotes on "just" a secretary because that's what the movie seemed to be emphasizing.

Oh okay my b. Tone definitely gets lost in text a lot.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

Blake J Harris, for both RAD and SKY CAPTAIN...am I the only one who can't find his articles? On Slashfilm his last posting continues to be for BEAUTIFUL CREATURES from June.

Share this post


Link to post

×