MovieChat Forums > Swept Away (2002) Discussion > The misogyny is what makes this so terri...

The misogyny is what makes this so terrible

posted 13 years ago by iseepinkelefants
11 replies | jump to latest

It wasn't the acting that did this in. Madonna was meh. I couldn't tell if she really was acting and playing a caricature of a snobby, over privileged woman or playing herself. That's not what made this film so bad. What made this so bad for me was the misogyny. The message that he treats her like crap and then all is well when she kisses his feet and sleeps with him?

I thought the Mazzy Stardust part was sweet. However it wasn't enough to make up for the past hour and tweleve minutes where he hates her and treats her like crap.

Others might disagree but I think her ending up with her husband in the end was the right thing. Had she ended up with Pepe it would have still been tragic since we never got the impression that her husband was an evil man who treated her badly. Even when she was being an evil harpy (not something I think her husband had anything to do with) in the beginning I never got that he didn't love her. In fact he seemed to love her immensely enough to overlook how much of a bitch she was. Even when she was attacking him, he was always very "yes, dear" and didn't say a bad word against her. The movie also made it seem as if he was actively searching for her (not a trait of a man not in love with his wife). I don't think one month with Pepe was enough to overshadow however many years she had with her husband. In fact i was kind of pissed with the turn at the end where they tried to change his character as the last minute. It didn't fit.

Had the film given the impression that she was so much better off with Pepe and was truly in love with him it would have been a different story. But she was in dire circumstances, who knows how much of that month was false.

The other reason this movie was crap was the script. It started off as a comedy, turned into something completely different, tried to transition back into comedy, and then ended on tragedy/forbidden love?

I don't think it's fair to put all the blame on Madonna for this being so bad. Clearly she wasn't the worst part.

That said the scenery was beautiful, and the use of color was great. That was the only thing this movie had going for it. The cinematographer did a great job.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] beauty02000 12 years ago

I can agree with you. If only the scprit was better and Madonna tried a bit harder, things wouldn't of ben differnt. Overall I like watching it.

We all have only one life, do what make you happy!

[–] tmack64-552-110411 12 years ago

I think there was sexual tension between the two before the accident. I do agree that he went overboard in his treatment of her. He became what he despised in her. It would have worked better if he was not as cruel as he was initially. Given her background, I can see that he had to break her down and help her to realize things were different now. However, I think he took advantage of the situation. I'm glad that he didn't force himself on her when he was chasing her in the sand.

[–] mnozarova 10 years ago

I think that his cruelty was exactly the point of the film and it wouldn`t work otherwise. The message of the film is that power corrupts, but that does not mean having no power makes you automatically noble, only your decisions can make you noble. The corruption lies within you - power does not create it, it only allows what`s inside to show. The commentary is one of the most powerful I`ve come across in popular culture.

And the fact that this commentary is buried under heaps of incomprehensible campiness is just hilarious.

[–] dfiguero 12 years ago

I agree! Seeing this today I thought, "this is not a film for our modern times". Normally, in a movie like this, the guy would try to win the girls hand, but instead, had her like a servant. Basically, this movie is saying that if you're submissive to a man, you'll be happy. And the change in movie at the end was weird. Maybe it would have worked better if it had been a serious romance all along.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheLightFantastic 11 years ago

This film really isn't any worse than half the rom com movies out today. Nearly all of them have the theme that a bitchy, uptight woman is bitchy and shrill because she can't find love. After she's finally cut down to size by a man, she falls in love with the guy because he "put her in her place".

This movie is just more overt about the message but honestly, that's the plot of nearly every Katherine Heigel-esque film.

[–] iseepinkelefants 10 years ago

You're thinking of "The Taming of the Shrew". Shakespeare started the trend I guess. Kind of sad that most romantic comedies are either that or Pride and Prejudice knockoffs.

Not clever enough for a signature
http://movingtoparisforallofthewrongreasons.blogspot.com/

[–] mothnm 10 years ago

"they tried to change his character as the last minute. It didn't fit. " A GWTW non change of character finale with audience seeing Pepe bitter because he thinks that she is a money grubbing liar while audience knows she wants to be with him would have better brought home husband's deviousness that got the girl. Audience would have then hated husband instead of the movie. Pepe needs to confront the receptionist he bribed to find out what happened to his letter and be furious at himself for losing. That would have kept him in character and given film the same ending but less sappy.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Artemis_Rules 10 years ago

oh put a can in it you feminazi landwhale

------------
religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom