'Judge me, you Bitch!'


Chills, dude...
This movie was pretty good for what they had to make it.

reply

[deleted]

raq_an_bet,

i think you missed the point of the monologue. he just finished relating how he was only capable of loving a passive victim and went on to silence his own emotional victim with pathetic hate speech.

characters who use the b-word in this film are exemplifying impotent rage and are pathetic just as any cartoonish villain (see kathleen turner's speech in the man with two brains: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0019652/quotes
Dolores Benedict: "I'll get you for this, you n!gg3r-k!k3-w0p." )

go back and read the title of the movie for a quick reminder.

reply

[deleted]

i wonder in what situation would it be "right, in (your) opinion" to call a black man or woman the n-word.

because if you re-read my reply above, you'll see, that's the case you are making.

when i said the hate speech was used to expose pathetic, impotent rage, did you think, "yes, how very right and noble!"?

john k.'s character was berating a silent woman who merely asked him a question and let him hang himself once he had enough rope. when he got to the end of his pretentious speech about being compelled to love his supernaturally-compassionate crunchy/hitcher/rape survivor, did he see the patience and compassion in the woman right in front of him?

no-- he projected his own ugliness onto her showing he had, in fact, learned nothing from the hitcher, and proceeded to call her a name that affects over 50% of the world's human population and 100% of those we call "Man's best friend". add to this the hypocrisy of his calling her judgmental, and i fail to see how he did anything but reveal how much he hates all women, not just the one in his immediate field of abuse.

hideous means ugly; it is not a synonym for righteous. the portrayal of this particular male character is intentionally subtle until the end where we finally see him for who he truly is: an arrogant, dominance-seeking jerk, one whom our interviewer can peacefully release after witnessing his illusion-shattering behavior. the spell is broken, and now she can move on

reply

[deleted]

I didn't see his speech as being a hate speech


hate speech is any epithet used by bigots. opinions don't figure into the equation-- that's why i used the examples above; you do know that sexism is bigotry, so you must understand no one word is worse than the other; they are all bad and used to spread hatred, thus, 'hate-speech.'

reply

[deleted]

if it were just a personal insult and not sexist, he would not have needed to to use a gendered word. that word will always be gendered, will always be sexist. that was the point.

he peeled off his Nice Guy®/emogynist rubber mask to show his real, old-fashioned, hideous wifebeater classic face-- and he would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for us meddling feminist kids!

reply


I'm sorry, but i am inclined to disagree. I saw the scene in a similar way to the OP. Although the word is traditionally gendered, it can be applied to both sexes in the same way that Bast ard would be.

Throughout the film she was making silent judgments about the men she interviewed or even just saw in the street. Yes, some of them were bigoted but some of them were not. She was hurt by one man and automatically turned to a defencive 'men are hideous creatures' stance, which i think she overcame.

One shouldn't forget that he and Sara have history, so i much less surprised by his reaction to her, he has seen her in a different light compared to the hippy and he dosn't like what he sees. That doesn't mean he hates women, he just doesn't like her.
This i might add is not the only example of somone responding to her insuch a way, Dominic Cooper's character also viewed her as cold and judgemental.

I can see where you are coming from, he was not totally in the right, after all he cheated and he left, but i will defend his monlogue, as i think he makes a good point.

Not sure where you got 'wifebeater' from though...

reply

(sigh...)
i am tired of feeding the trolls, so once more-- b-word=hate speech=n-word. if you would not use one, then you should not use the other, no exceptions. verbal abuse was what was being portrayed, therefore the allusion to "wifebeater classic."

"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce

reply

Never hard to find a feminist.
Let me guess. Your the only feminist who isn't guilty of what age accuses men of being.

So when you say a gendered word is sexist you never call a man a dick or prick?
You never talk about men in a degrading and sexist way because you don't want to be a hypocrite?

Yeah right. Never meant a feminist who treats men with respect and who doesn't act like a victim to justify her worse sexist attitudes.

reply

Sexism is not bigotry. Sexism is, by definition, a belief in sex. In other words, a recognition that men and women are inherently different in certain ways. No thoughtful person seriously disputes this (although many feminists may).

Bigotry, on the other hand, is defined as intolerance towards other views, or, more generally prejudice -- blindly assuming certain things about an entire group, without basis.

Calling someone you know a "bitch" is not necessarily either. Many women are in fact bitches, just as many men are *beep* If the statement is truthful, there is no basis for condemnation. If he was calling all women bitches, you might have a point. But he is not. Hating one person =/= hating all members of that gender or race. And he also knows her far better than you do. There is clearly something far more sexist in her entire project than there is in his commentary.

P.S.: The word bitch only "affects" 50% of the dog population.

reply

later, troll...

"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce

reply

Inko8 - that was very insightful! I just finished watching this movie and still felt cloudy and confused at John K's monologue... thanks for de-fogging it! :-)

reply

belated thanks for your kind reply!

"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce

reply

Excellent, nay, amazing insight.

When he got through with his speech several thoughts left me hanging: why shouldn't she (his ex) judge him? He admitted he went over to the hippie with intentions of picking her up bc she was "pretty", how does his hearing her rape story change the original intention, which he carried out: to sleep with this other woman? He saw something, he wanted it, he went and got it and now is providing a story to make himself feel better about doing it. Which drives home to your point about the truth of his character: arrogant, dominance-seeking jerkiness.

reply

thanks for your kind thoughts!

"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce

reply


P.S.: It would presumably be "right" (accurate) to call a black man or woman the n-word if they were acting like an n-word. Chris Rock understands this basic principle, I'm not sure why you don't. The problem is when you use such words simply because someone is black, a woman, etc.

Seriously, your women's studies courses have really distorted your views on this film, as well as on life generally (apparently).

reply

[deleted]

Inko, with all due respect, it was you who missed the real point of the monologue. The underlying point was actually about love, and the fact that he loved the hippie girl. He believe she could save him, and he was probably right.

The fact she eventually realized this, and realized the sincerity of his speech, is proven by the fact that she later gives this advice to someone else -- "she can save you."

reply

Urgh. Only a woman can save a man.
Horrible message. You never hear the reverse.
Makes my eyes roll when this tripe designed only to make women think men need them more than they need men.

A sexist message I'm sure the feminist wants abolished *rolls eyes*

reply

Chills, indeed.
It was so unexpected, caught me totally off guard. But it was brilliantly delivered!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I may have missed this, or was confused by it, but he said e met the hippie religionist chick at a park on a blanket?

Did anyone else think that he may have been the rapist?

reply

I haven't seen the film and I'm not inclined to do so. Would someone give me a précis of the final soliloquy by John Krasinski's character? What's the implication/outcome of the speech?

Am I right in understanding that he lambasts his ex-girlfriend for being judgemental? What's this about him being attracted to 'passive victims', there's a mention of a 'hippe chick' to whom he felt compassion and an attraction?

If impersonating a Police Officer is an offence, shouldn't actors be imprisoned?

reply

No, he doesn't lambaste. He monologues (as the book does) about the affair he had with a young woman (hippie chick), and the harrowing story that she told him(about being raped while hitch-hiking and fearing for her life, but surviving through energy and will). The story changed his life and that is the reason for him leaving the main character.
The only reference to his view of the central character is the line at the end "so judge me you b*tch!"
The purpose of the speech is for him to explain his motivation for leaving the main woman, in a rather roundabout fashion.
The hippie chick is the entire purpose of the story and i guess would also be the 'passive victim' role. He picked the 'hippie chick' up because he was attracted to her, and after hearing her story he felt compassion.

This whole debate was about whether the use of the work b*tch when directed at her, qualifies as sexist violence... Which i don't think it does.

I do recommend the film though, it makes interesting, and sometimes difficult viewing.



reply

I agree that Ryan’s use of the term b*tch was not sexist in nature. Although the word b*tch is obviously a gendered term, he was not using it to express anger, frustration or judgment against women in general; he was using it to express his frustrations with Sara specifically.

More so, I think his anger at her was absolutely justified. He had just opened up himself to her, making himself more vulnerable than he's probably ever been in his life and all she could do was sit there in cold, silent, angry judgment. Sara began her research project with the guise of trying to develop a better understanding of men, but she seemed completely unwilling to empathize with those who agreed to speak with her.

With her ex, Sara was unwilling to listen to him because in my opinion, she seemed more interested in maintaining her status as a victim than admitting to herself that he may be anything other than just a misogynistic jerk and a cheater. Even though the whole point of his anecdote was to share the fact that he experienced true empathy, she was unwilling to even try to empathize with him.

This is somewhat off topic, but I also had an interesting thought that I wanted to share: Many of Sara’s interviews concerned sexist acts enacted against women only during the interview process; it was the men who were degraded by being made so vulnerable. Does anybody think that Sara’s true motivation for conducting the interviews was to shame the men?

reply

In answer to your question, in some ways, yes. Or at least that's how it struck me. She seemed to want to make them out to be bad, without really making much attempt to understand. However this might not be her intention, but more a by-product of experience. You raise an interesting point though.

reply

Jim from The Office calling her a bitch was funny.

"Bulls**t MR.Han Man!!"--Jim Kelly in Enter the Dragon

reply

But Sara didn't look cold and angry. She looked like she was trying to empathize, but really imagine that you have been cheated on and the person that went out with the intention of cheating on you tells you this story about how the person they cheated on you with helped them reach some type of epiphany. Do you think it would be easy for her or anyone for that matter to say "wow, I'm happy that you discovered this about yourself." Of course not. Honestly there was nothing she could say that is both honest and comforting for him when it comes to her feelings about what he has just revealed.

I think the interactions with the student were much better at capturing the judgements men and women have about each other than any other moment in the entire movie. To me, the hippie's story about how she dealt with the rape in the exact moment rang false to me.

reply

popesantaxiv wrote:

"I may have missed this, or was confused by it, but he said he met the hippie religionist chick at a park on a blanket?

"Did anyone else think that he may have been the rapist?"

--------

Now, THAT is an interesting speculation!

I just now watched this film, and at first I found the interviews with the various, stupidly shallow men painful to watch, a bit over-the-top exaggerated and cliche, but as the end of the film approached, it seemed to get better and better, and the final monologue from the cheating boyfriend was riveting. The idea that he may have been the rapist in the hippy girl story only radically accentuates the meaning of that story and this film, intensifying our--or at least my--reaction to it.

There are a number of ways of interpreting this film (as the opposing comments in this thread indicate), and I see equally valid meaning in those views which take the more "male-slanted" or the more "female-slanted" POV. Now, I generally hate/reject the very idea that there are sexually distinct consciousnesses (I prefer to think of the true or best consciousness as objective and universal, and I've often called myself a feminist male, citing my being raised by a feminist mother who I dearly love and respect), and yet this film drags my awareness into uncomfortable areas of recognizing that we all may (MAY) be, in the end, somewhat inescapably sexist in our POVs, and that I myself may (MAY), therefore, be so also. This I feel because I now realize that even IF the final monologue-ing boyfriend was indeed the rapist in the story, I can't help but feel that it's at least *possible* that the hippy chick he raped really did affect him so deeply that he might be capable of being "saved" by her. And yet, my first reaction to his monologue was for me to say to the screen, "No one can save you, only you can ever save yourself, or, perhaps even more truly, salvation is ultimately a mystery and a matter of the luck of the draw." But, I've also always believed (as many or most of us do), that love is indeed the path to "salvation," and I've also always believed that love is a choice we make whether or not freedom of choice is an illusion (for it is at the very least, then, a real illusion, just as a dream is "real" in that it does indeed exist... AS a dream).

Sorry for the rambling on. I just found popesantaxiv's speculation a very catalyzing one. And no, I'm about as far from being a rapist as anyone can be, so perish that thought. And yet... radically extreme feminists have sometimes asserted that "all men are rapists" (which I've always rejected as sexist bigotry and codswallop)...

This film really made me think, and that's what I value most in any film.

reply