MovieChat Forums > The Tempest (2011) Discussion > revisionist feminist propaganda

revisionist feminist propaganda


retelling a story with the main character's gender switched is just stupid

what's next? Macbethette?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ Why does Canada need a queen?

reply

[deleted]

Not to mention the almost cliched point in which originally Shakespeare plays and other plays were all played by men, so this gender switch is right along the same spirit of it all. I've seen Shakespeare performed in hip hop form, in 80s punk scene, in 1930s Depression era America I have heard it done in Old West (which some would say that is exactly what Deadwood is)

reply

Why is it stupid? Does it really affect your viewing pleasure that much? Are you a huge fan of the play? Seriously, I think complaining about this is just plain stupid.

reply

Sweiland75: Please explain why it is stupid to turn an idea on its head to look at it from a different, uncommon angle... especially in the context of creating tension purely for drama's sake, as opposed to some mysterious feminist agenda you seem to be preoccupied with as though you'd been listening to too many imbecile entertainers on talk radio whose tendency it is to pander to the lowest common denominator.



Member - DFW Film Critics Association
http://www.cinemalogue.com

reply

Absurd. It was not "feminist" in the least. They swapped the gender of a character? Big deal. It played out exactly the same.

reply

1) The concern is not insignificant in the least. It may be unwarranted, but it is quite reasonable. The real question is, what is the justification for the gender change? There are a lot of films out there which are nothing but excuses to bash men over the head for being men. A lot more TV shows and books, as well.

2) If it played out the same, why was it needed to do it? It certainly isn't true to the original, in that case, which may, or may not, be of relevance to the overall story. There can certainly be cases where this was interesting, the aforementioned Romeo+Juliet being a prime example.

3) In my own experience, females tend to be what, in the 70s was called "chauvinist pigs". They have no sensitivity to men's issues, and pretty much sneer at them as inconsequential. In short, they're quite sexist and have absolutely no clue about that. The most common example of this is claiming that "history", because it happens to have "his" in it is somehow only about men and the things men have done. Women have a substantial backstory and part in pretty much all of it, but that only seems to matter when women want to complain about their not being more at the forefront of things. When it comes to acknowledging their own part in the creation of events, well, that's only the "good" things, never the bad. The idea that women have as much to do with wars and making war as men do is, well, inconceivable. Hint: there's a reason the "Lysistrata" meme is so rare in human history, and not far, far more common. Most women in history have recognized that war, if won, usually benefits them far more than men. But try and get some modern woman to figure THAT out for herself...

=================

Note: I have not seen the film yet. I'll touch back and see if there's any (gasp!) male-bashing in it which has somehow not been noticed by the women who've watched it.

reply

oh, lord. You're coming off as such a conservative right-winger anti-feminist woman hater. :P

Most women- hell, most feminists wouldn't agree with that absurd extreme you mention in that above paragraph.

And the point is that you HAVEN'T seen the movie, so it's absurd for you to judge it for no reason. If anything a sublimely competent actress in the role of the very flawed male lead just goes to balance fallibleness of the sexes; Prospero wasn't exactly the best portrayal of all that's good in malekind.

But really all it comes down to is that they cast someone perfect for the role, regardless of gender. Because really, neither sex nor gender matter in the part of Prospero.

By the way, I'm a dude, dude.

reply

of course they wouldnt agree. who would admit they think such an absurd thing? very strong people maybe, but not feminazis. the people who actually do it.

I love Jesus AND Jesus-hating atheists and am 100% proud!

reply

For me it was not a problem, because I din´t know nothing about the original play.

But it was problem to acept a woman named PROSPERO, because it is clearly a male name.

Oscar
Hablo mejor español :)

reply

Gender-bending and Shakspeare have walked hand in hand since the very beginning. This isn't some new feminist agenda trying to put men down, it is looking at a play from a new angle, and is fun. Shakespeare's plays have been done so much, and in so many different ways, each new production or film wants to bring something new to the table. Helen Mirren is fantastic as Prospera... it is an interesting change, and far more than just a gimmick.

But you know if you can't take gender-bending looks at Shakespeare maybe you should go back to a time when they didn't occur, like 1921... oh wait, never mind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0012249/

~If you say "I had everything under control" one more time I'm going to slap you with my guitar.~

reply

Her name was Prospera.

"Just because you understand the mechanics of how something works doesn't make it any less of a miracle"

reply

Newmay's not known to be a conventional film maker. And, well, she is a woman.

reply

[deleted]

The irony that in Shakespeare's times men played women's roles!

It's that man again!!

reply