They made a point of making the female lead out to be strong and independent (alpha) the male lead was submissive and a bit of a wimp (beta.)
Should women expect old fashioned chivalry as well as 100% equality? It seems that by definition, they can't exist together.
Pushing her in front of the gun was a weak move, but if the roles were reversed, would it be as big of deal? Isn't that the definition of equality?
Nope.
It's a selfish vs. selfless act. That's it, don't over think it.
The act itself wasn't the lame part either, it was the whole boring movie made about the awkward silence, the lack of communication from the spineless guy, and the inevitable "cheating".
Their relationship is doomed.
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/
Funny, the movie seemed way, way too long given the story it told, yet I found I really didn't mind so much. This despite the couple having almost zero appeal between them, only the Georgian guide came off as an appealing character.
As for the question of chivalry, I think the rub lies in the characterization of it as "old fashioned." Old school chivalry may not work well with full equality, but that doesn't mean that chivalry per se is no longer possible or desirable. I believe in equal pay, reproductive freedom, etc., but I also believe that in a situation of physical danger it is incumbent upon men to protect women, with their lives if need be (not to mention that the source of the danger is often other men:). It is still women & children first in my opinion. Doesn't matter in the least if she's your boss or makes three times what you do.
That said, there is a degree of reciprocity in every relationship, & think there are other situations, perhaps not physically dramatic, in which women can just as easily take the lead. E.g., nearly twenty years ago our family was briefly forced to reply on food stamps. This was, as one can imagine, a heavy blow to pride & self-worth. I volunteered to shop with them, but my wife insisted on doing it herself by herself. "I love getting some of my tax dollars back this way!" she insisted. Convincingly, too. But I still don't believe her. & I will never forget or nor stop being grateful to her for that.
In comparison, facing a bullet or a dunk in the ocean is nothing in particular:)
<<.the danger is often other men:). It is still women & children first in my opinion. Doesn't matter in the least if she's your boss >>
Au contraire, if its my boss, ill let it take the bullet in the face and then toast merrily with the old georgian fella.
The way I look at it, NO ONE should have pushed anyone in front of the gun.
shareI completely agree!
In the guy’s defense though, he did it automatically and pretty quickly put himself in front of it instead.
What equality??
If the scene had been on board a sinking ship she would have been safe on a lifeboat while he counted whatever minutes he had left!!!
Women and children first and all that rubbish!!
BTW I imagine that is still the practice!!
Sounds like you'd have fit right in with the men on the Titanic who pushed aside children to get into the lifeboat first. The rats leaving the sinking ship...
For women in our society to want to be treated like human beings rather than sex objects or punching bags, to be paid for their skills on par with men, is only right. It does not mean that they are not still women who more often than not are physically not as strong (although there are exceptions) as men.
As for including children in the category of those who don't deserve either a man or woman's protection is just deplorable. I've seen two comments along this line and I'm not impressed.
As for this film, no one should have shoved another person, man or woman, in front of the gun.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Bad analysis. She's not an alpha female at all. Just because his reflexes were what they were (though he more than made good on it), doesnt mean she became any more independent. She was a whiny, sulky and annoying person. Even worse, she's unfaithful. And anyone who believes in women and children first is a sexist.
shareI believe in helping the weakest first. Does that make me sexist? Women and children are often but not always the weakest. Likewise for the infirm and the elderly. Sex has noting to do with anything in those cases.
His reaction was probably the wrong one, but it's pretty hard to judge a person from a reaction they cannot control. Once he had a chance to think, he took what I thought was a very brave action and she didn't complain.
It was just one of those f'ed up situations that could happen to anyone. Other than her one drunken transgression which still needs to be dealt with, I have trouble faulting anyone in this movie.
This is pretty much the only attitude that makes sense in this whiny thread. If someone is physically weaker than you & is being physically threatened by someone who is much physically larger then they are, the moral thing to do is step in & support the smaller person (teamwork, guys) against the power abuser. It makes no difference what gender or how large the third party is. People who frame this situation as 'chivalry vs equality' are just really *beep* ugly people.
End of conversation.
I understood Nica's anger in that scene, I don't think anyone should be pushed in front of a gun. Alex's move was more of a "gotta cover up my weakness with chivalry!" Let's not play the gender roles, he messed up, she rationally got upset. It was later on in the film where I began to dislike her character. When they were crossing the stream and Alex crosses through first (because Nica insisted), she falls into the cold water behind him and Dato quickly helps her up, all while Alex still has his back turned. And when Alex runs to help her as well, Nica still becomes upset with Alex as if it was his fault. Later, she on briefly cheats on Alex with Dato. This movies, man...
shareFor a movie that turned me off like none did b4 I find myself wanting to know more about it so here i am!
Well, I applaud and encourage women to want equality (actually any human being for wanting independence), but you can't have everything all the time. This desire and achievement has changed the rule of the game of society. Most men were used to work hard and be the breadwinner and women were doing a pretty good job at keeping the boat afloat. Most were happy with this situation. As things changed men got confused or placed in a not needed situation. Some adapted many took to the bottle (may be not :) ) Anyway whether it provided an excuse for some men to take it easy in all departments including chivalry, (sometimes regarded by the other gender as offensive or condescending). Thus I think in our society that has not really yet come to terms with these aspirations and changes, we are likely to see all kind of stands.
I did not find the story's incidents (I can think of three, but I did close my eyes for a while, although the pace of the film almost guaranteed I did not miss anything!) disturbing or much different that can be expected in a more ordinary situation. And I agree that most being faced with a sudden gun pointing at one's face would instinctively look for cover. And here I have more regards for someone who think of what he is doing rather than acts with instinct. However instinct is also affected by lots of factors such as upbringing, natural quality, social environment and so on. I feel lucky I worked in an environment where both genders were equally paid even if occasionally we faced what the army faces , situations where females did not have the physical and impact that men had and I concede that they had other qualities to sometimes compensate. The debate has been on for a while and certainly will go on possibly for ever.
I didn´t see any of that in the scene. I thought he was being playful about it, he had a playful instinct about the situation and its absurdness. If someone pulled a gun on me I couldn´t take it seriously, its too weird, people wouldn´t seriously want to kill me. Of course it makes him look bad and it was definitely a mistake, but I didn´t think he was actually afraid or weak.
shareThere are deeply embedded feelings about masculinity and femininity being explored in the film and with that pivotal scene. Such feelings have nothing to do with equality in the sense of men and women the same. There's a lot more to it than that. Plus, the feelings would be largely unconscious and only felt during a moment of confrontation such as occurred.
I don't understand why the OP thinks 100% equality = men and women to behave exactly the same. Whatever the political sentiments of some, it's about women being recognised as people whose role and voice in society has as much validity as men. This makes a request of men to share power in society. It does not mean that men stop being men and women stop being women.
Away with the manners of withered virginsshare