Disappointing portrayal of women? - Obsluhoval jsem anglického krále (2007) Discussion

[–] Bonifacij 16 years ago

Well there is one woman that shows values, self-restraint and determination. Too bad she was a Nazi...

I think you are taking things too literally, it is not really about prostitution. Portrayal of the "nature of life" is perhaps more to the point.

reply

[–] drawhanger 16 years ago

The Puritan Work Ethic once again rears its ugly head. I understand that everyone has their opinion, but when it is judgmental, it is another thing. The communists banned Hrabal's book which the movie was based on, and it wasn't until 10 years after his death that his lifetime friend Menzel put the novel on the big screen. There is an entire historical back story to this movie and to criticize based on American morals is sad. In 1350 AD Bohemia was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, ruled by Charles the 4th who ushered in the golden age of Prague as well as the Holy Roman Empire. He was against anti-semitism and let Jews flourish in Prague. Eventually in 1500 AD the Hapsburgs took over Bohemia and for over 400 years it was occupied by the Austro-Hungarian empire. After WW1 the Czech's enjoyed their Sovereignty until Hitler invaded the Czech lands and made it a Protectorate of Germany and calling the border areas Sudentenland. Many Czech citizens lost their property to the occupying germans and if they resisted they were sent to concentration camps like Terezin in Northern Bohemia, where they perished. Ever been in a concentration camp? It will bring you to tears to know what happened to people who were fighting for their freedom and sovereignty. After the war, in 1948, Czechoslovakia joined the Soviet satellite countries and actually in the 1960's was the most prosperous country in Central Europe. As their government discussed joining western Europe, The Soviet Union and a couple other satellite countries invaded the Czechoslovakia in the Spring of 1968, many Czechs fled, and those who couldn't were put to work in Uranium mines where they perished. The Soviets raped Czechoslovakia and made it into a 3rd world country. Eventually in 1989 the Soviets left and the Czechs had their country back and have the freedom once again to make films out of banned books.
I can't think of any time in American History were Americans have been repressed by an strict regime that has taken away their property and freedom? You are entitled to your opinion, but it is sad when it is based on morals vs true artistic criticism it is just symptomatic of how close minded and elitist many Americans are.

reply

[–] bottsford 16 years ago

Uhm...what does any of that have to do with the movie's portrayal of women and prostitution? It's not prudish or moralistic to point out that there's only one woman in the movie who isn't defined by her sexual availability to men, and she's a fervid Nazi who speaks at great length about eugenics. The screenwriter and director don't grant the autonomy and multidimensionality to the female characters that they do to the male ones.

The havoc wreaked upon Czechoslovakia by the Nazis doesn't make that dismissable, nor is this criticism moral and not artistic -- it's a criticism of narrow-minded writing and directing. The movie would have been stronger with female characters who were as well-developed as the male ones.

And the person who started this thread was being rather mild in her/his comment about it; your response was completely out of proportion.

reply

[–] benjamin_lappin 16 years ago

Perhaps because the film isn't about the female characters?

The film focuses on Jan Dite throughout this adult life, and due to the nature of Dite he encounters many women on his travels. I think many people get sidetracked via the use of the women as these "objects" these slaves to perverted drooling men, and that the only one who isn't primed to take her clothes off on queue is as others have put it "the fervid Nazi". This is true but it forgoes the notion that by the end of Dite's stay with the Nazi she herself is practically throwing herself at him, but the reasonings for it are simply completely different to all his copulations before.

Dite's gift is that he is profoundly loyal, his curse is he is deeply naive. For good or for ill he sees through the Nazi and falls in love with her. He doesn't concern himself with the uniform that she wears, and even though she is not a particularly "nice" (for want of a better word) person, he remains true to her, forgoing his job, his work and his friends. He risks everything he has, and loses everything he has purely because of her. So what we ascertain about Dite is that he sees the beauty within the women, regardless of what they may, or may not be wearing, and as for the 'not be wearing' he sees them as beautiful women internally as well as externally. I don't think at one point throughout this film there is a single woman who is forced into undertaking any act. There isn't a single woman that has been held captive and forced to allow men to eat fruit off of her body. These women CHOOSE to put themselves in these specific positions, and I think with our modern day prejudice and views on such activities there are many that look upon these women with immense disdain, when perhaps they should look again at what the director is trying to tell us. Why do you think there are so many female counterpoints to Dite as he progresses? The director doesn't have time to flesh out these female characters, but also because they don't need to be multi-dimensional, they only need to be one dimensional to mirror the different stages of Dite's life and his views on life.

This isn't an attack on those that view the portrayal of women in this film as somewhat scandalous in an old dated fashion, but this is a film about older times. Crab-7 pertains that the director is "narrow-minded" in his directing, I would put it to the viewer that they themselves are "narrow-minded" in the perception of the film and HOW each woman relates to the MAIN protagonist. It's not "A Bunch Of Maids Served The English King" It's Obsluhoval Jsem Anglickeho Krale (I (the singular) Served The King Of England), perhaps more time should be spent focusing on what the women mean, as opposed to what they are not wearing.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sarcasim11 16 years ago

First of all, I'm not sure you could come up with a more self-absorbed, overweening, and yet completely ignorant response to the OP if you tried. Nothing in your long-winded pile of crap had anything to do with the OP. Absolutely nothing.

Secondly, where did the OP mention mentions being American? You know what group of people assume everyone is American? Americans! So, I'm assuming your an American college student that is majoring in Czech studies, or language, or possibly just East European studies.

And how the hell can you accuse someone of being judgemental and then follow it up with this drivel? Your post couldn't be more judgemental, you crazy hypocrite.

So get your head out of your ass!

reply

[–] benjamin_lappin 16 years ago

The fact is the post had a point pertaining to the portrayal of women, yet you indulge in exactly the same "drivel" you accuse me of. The points are made you just choose solely not to accept them, instead ignoring the merits of them entirely just to gain some "message board kudos points", congratulations, indeed perhaps we should all engage in this form of verbal warfare. Cretin, I wouldn't go around using the words "judgmental" (no E, note) or "hypocrite" like their going out of fashion.

And furthermore, for the record, I'm actually an Englishman and lived in Prague for three years of my life, visiting there frequently ever since, and infact I saw the film in question, in a cinema "IN" Prague, so please pardon the arrogance when I think I have at best a vague idea what's going on, it's still a vague idea more than you. Also, where in that "rant" as you put it, did I even mention the word Americans?

Perhaps you should take more time reading and understanding the formulaic constructs of a post on one of these threads as opposed to attacking on something which isn't even validated. I'm not saying what I wrote gives the answers to the film, of course not, but I merely posted an interpretation as to why I felt the female characters weren't as flushed out as others may have wished them to be.

Plus, ending your post with "So get your head out of your ass"...classy. Really classy.

reply

[–] drawhanger 16 years ago

So get your head out of your ass!

Sorry you feel that way. Every so often, most often here, a troll inhabits the IMDB forum, and I am outing you sarcasim11 as a troll!

BTW, did you actually see the film? What was your opinion?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Doovie-2 15 years ago

I enjoyed your rant and while I think it does go a little off topic, I agree that the OPs statements do appear to be mired in an american puritan pov.

reply

[–] vdld 16 years ago

Drawhanger, you seem to have so much anger toward Americans and I don't know why. You are apparently disgusted by our "Puritan work ethic" and you say that "to criticize based on American morals is sad" and then you conclude by saying how "close minded and elitist many Americans are." The thing that really made me laugh, however, was this casual sentence: "Eventually in 1989 the Soviets left and the Czechs had their country back." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! If my close-minded, elitist, puritanical memory serves me, I think it was Ronald Reagan who is credited with bringing down the Soviet Union. You forgot to mention that part. Although you are right that Americans have never been "repressed by a strict regime that has taken away their property and freedom," you neglected to state the reason for that. It's not because we're close-minded and elitist. It's because we have a strong miltary and, thank G_d we have young men and women willing to put on a uniform and defend our country. Without American blood and treasure spilled in WWII I shudder to imagine what would have become of Czechozlovakia, not to mention the rest of Europe. So please, spare us your ridicuous marginalization of America and Americans. It's really getting old.

reply

[–] drawhanger 16 years ago

The USSR capitulated on its own accord, with the assistance of Gorbachev.

The Czechs have had a long and bloody history long before American Patriots spilled their blood at Bunker Hill or the 101st Airborne endured German mortar shells the in Ardenne Forest.

A Czech scholar named Jan Hus taught protestant doctrine a hundred years before Martin Luther nailed his proclamation to the church doors, which was the catalyst for more religious scholars to preach new religious ideas. Theoretically, if there was no Czech Jan Hus, John Bunyan may have not written a Pilgrim's Progress.

It is upsetting when someone makes a comment on something they do not understand without understanding the back story or culture behind what they are criticizing.

reply

[–] rosabelverde_1127 16 years ago

If my close-minded, elitist, puritanical memory serves me, I think it was Ronald Reagan who is credited with bringing down the Soviet Union. You forgot to mention that part.

That's one of the craziest pieces of misinformation I've heard in a long time. Drawhanger is right on this:

The USSR capitulated on its own accord, with the assistance of Gorbachev.

and after Hungary and Germany started the entire process.

Regards, Rosabel

reply

[–] Stirling00 15 years ago

A] Your post has virtually nothing to do with the OP's question.

B] "I can't think of any time in American History were Americans have been repressed by an strict regime that has taken away their property and freedom?"

Are you serious? The Revolutionary War, The Civil War [ask a fervid Southerner about Lincoln], WWI and WWII were far more detrimental to the rights and freedoms of the average American than anything we've seen since 1945.

reply

[–] Chalcenteric_Kid 16 years ago

"Was I alone in getting annoyed at the repeated portrayal of women as sex toys?"

Er. Yes. Because they were never "sex toys".

reply

[–] JonMorgan 16 years ago

The group I saw this with today raised the same question. To me, it almost speaks to the way wealthy men view or treat women; there is an overlap between capitalism and patriarchy (money = control, and with enough money you can buy anything). The kind of gratuitous nudity and sex, etc. we saw here strike me as common among the rich throughout history--and certainly today, except that it's better hidden. The roles and portrayal of women were definitely disturbing, and I haven't read the book, but it seems to me as plausible that it came from a desire to accurately recreate that time and place as that the director sees women this way or wanted to tell such a story in such a way. Huckleberry Finn gets banned a lot because of its use of the N word. But it's not there because Twain believed that way, used it himself or wanted readers to; it's there because as disgusting as it may be to us, that's how people talked in Missouri in the mid-1800s. (Still do, but again, it's better hidden)

reply

[–] medicatedsoup 16 years ago

It appears to me as though some people cant help but publicly project their own issues and insecurities onto art/things sometimes?

And its interesting that a person could just as easily say that most of the men were portrayed as shallow,greedy,leering creatures.

I thought the film was great,and also really enjoyed closely observed trains a few years ago.

reply

[–] rosabelverde_1127 16 years ago

I haven't seen the film, but I'm currently halfway through the novel and have to say that the way women are being regarded here is getting on my nerves a lot and tempted me to stop after the second chapter; it makes the novel look so very dated, like it was written in the 19th century. But the male characters aren't much better, it's all so neo-baroque, and I'm not sure I'll make it all through the book or want to see the film.

Regards, Rosabel

reply

[–] legendlength 15 years ago

Most of the women you refer to were prostitutes. Are you seriously questioning why they were portrayed as sex toys?

reply

[–] slakresistance 15 years ago

Let me help you out here. First of all, you should take issue with the book, not the movie. I know it's all about the cult of image and icon and whatever, but it basically stayed true to the book. Secondly, what kind of silly thing is it that women enjoying the experience "does not accord with the reality of prostitution." Is that so? Are you sure you're not somehow mistaking the world's oldest profession with sex slavery?

It's easy to make that mistake when you believe the Protestant lie.

reply

[–] grruff182 15 years ago

I think whoever was offended gravely missed out on the questionable beauty in this film. Good God are these women gorgeous in this movie. This movie is a celebration of the beauty of the "fairer" sex. Women are fawned after and loved in every scene. Men are practically paralyzed by their beauty. It is joyous.

When the woman comes in out of the rain, those men are dumbstruck with beauty. They are all in a trance from her. Also in a world where we are all supposed to be so cynical about plastic surgery and breast implants, these are natural gorgeous women. Would you rather her shreek in fear and then them rape her!?!

None of these women are rail thin runway models that people say we are attracted to either.

reply

[–] pedro4300 15 years ago

drawhanger has to be the biggest a**wipe on these entire boards and his whole post does nothing to prove his point, which he has none. There was not one single woman in that movie that didn't come off as a paper thin characterization.

reply