The Problem With Jennifer's Body

Please wake me up in about two years, so that The Hunger Games movie has come out and the fandom has had enough time to make their way through all the usual complaints a fandom undergoes when their beloved source material is changed on its way to the screen and I can talk with people again about the actual content of the story as opposed to whether or not every single person cast looks right for the role. And by looks right, not, I don't mean is made to look right via training and make-up and costume. I mean bitching about how a young actress actually has meat on her bones and is thus an inappropriate choice despite what the author and director say.

Despite being a bit above the target age range for Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games trilogy, about a month and a half ago I decided to give it a spur of the moment read and I admit I was instantly addicted. It's an engrossing story with what I think are generally interesting characters and pretty decent writing. I will happily discuss whether the love triangle is annoyingly overplayed in Catching Fire, whether Katniss' behaviour in Mockingjay is either due to proper characterization or author laziness, and whether the ending is sufficient or not.

What I cannot stand, however, are the same debates I participated in, intensely, mind you, once upon a time when I was a thirteen-year-old crazed and newly indoctrinated Harry Potter fan. Was I pissed that Daniel Radcliffe had blue eyes and not green and found it silly he wasn't wearing contacts to fix that? You bet. When I was older and I realized that a) such an obsession was stupid, b) that it really didn't matter that much, and c) that Daniel Radcliffe was unable to wear the contacts because of irritation, I got over it. I think most fans did eventually because we realized what a stupid little debate it was. Harry's blazing green eyes, like his mother's, are a huge deal in the books. In the movies, they're less so. They're still a deal - Lupin remarks on them particularly in the third film and I imagine they'll play their related role in the final film - but the films adjust for the problems faced.

These sorts of issues, as The Hunger Games movie inches slowly towards filming and, eventually, completion, are floating around the fandom in abundance. People are bitching about everything, and while Willow Shields' unibrow was a big hot topic, the biggest hot topic of all is the casting of Jennifer Lawrence as the beloved lead character of Katniss Everdeen. Now, I think Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress and I can completely see her personifying what I think is a strong female protagonist in Katniss. She probably doesn't look anything like I originally imagined Katniss to look like, but I can see it in her, just like I started to see Peeta in Josh Hutcherson, who also looks differently than one might have imagined Peeta (and don't get me started on the fans who are still obsessed with picking naturally blonde actors who are rather stringy in my opinion). Some people, however, are far too obsessed with the appearance, particularly parts of Jennifer Lawrence's appearance that are harder to fix than her hair color - and I'm not talking about the debate raging over Katniss' skin color, I'm talking about her weight.

The objections to Jennifer Lawrence's curves, to put it bluntly, piss me the fuck off. It rings in my ears of all the horrendous standards that we hold women up to and the ways in which women are still objectified so much in film as having to be whatever image we deem correct and if it doesn't fit with our mold, then it is wrong. I know that when most people comment on Jennifer Lawrence's curves, they don't mean that actresses can't be curvy. Of course not, we have Queen Latifah, known for her bodacious body. But this is really not the norm. We have such bizarre and unrealistic and every-changing standards for women and we never seem to be able to do it right. As Jennifer Hudson has lost weight, many of her fans have been rather shocked and disappointed that she felt the need to lose weight, while simultaneously people are constantly wondering if Gabourey Sidibe should lose some weight because she might be dangerously unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, I do think obesity is a problem in this country and not one we should glorify. But neither should we glorify appearances that are unattainable or at the very least extremely difficult for normal women to attain. While we encourage girls to embrace their curves, we continue to bash women whose weight changes regularly, like Kelly Clarkson. When Lady Gaga puts on a few pounds, suddenly her stomach becomes a huge national problem - Why isn't she as skinny as she was in the Telephone music video!?!?!? we wonder, because it's wrong for these women who are supposed to be visually perfect to ruin our images of them by being human. Weight fluctuation is hardly unheard of amongst the normal folk and beneath the personal trainers and strict diets, celebrities are normal folk too.

That said, then, shouldn't we choose actors who can physically embody the very specific framework we have in mind for a character? Dumb, dumb, dumb. I get it, Katniss' character is very specifically one who has suffered from malnourishment her entire life. But even if we get a sickly stick of an actress who could potentially perform the role of Katniss brilliantly, there's still a difference between a healthy, skinny body and a malnourished, skinny body. And let's face it, we're not going to cast someone that is literally malnourished - that is, unless Christian Bale was in the role and he would just make that choice on his own probably and the fans would hail him for it, but would it be right? Everyone also worries when Christian Bale does such a thing, and we'd worry for whatever actress that played Katniss that would do it too. But, BUT, beneath that worry, don't even lie to yourself, you'd be proud of that actor for taking such a dramatic step. You'd be impressed and pleased that the actor would be willing to take such a risk for the sake of art. I'm not going to lie, I'd probably be impressed too. But while being impressed, I'd also be disgusted.

There is a poster that hangs in the health services office in my college. It shows two pictures of legs. One is a starving child. One is a runway model. Their legs, despite one pair being cleaner than the other, are indistinguishably similar in shape. That horrifies me, which is the point of the poster. If you are naturally skinny, there's nothing you can help about that. Same with if you're curvy. But there is still, always, a difference between what is natural and healthy and what is unnatural and unhealthy. You can suffer from either no matter what shape or size you are.

We need to stop boxing women into categories based on their size though. Daniel Radcliffe has grown up to be a lot stockier than I imagined Harry in the books to be - Harry always seemed so stretched and, at times, lanky. Daniel Radcliffe is of more average height and weight in appearance. But he has also grown into becoming a better actor and a better Harry over the years. Movie!Harry and Book!Harry are different in their appearance and y'know what? That's okay, because Daniel Radcliffe still manages to capture the general essence of what the character of Harry Potter is, at least in the movies. A smaller debate has raged in the Potter fandom community over the looks of its female characters. In the books, Ginny is supposed to be very popular and supposedly pretty good-looking, but Bonnie Wright's beauty doesn't seem to be particularly played up in the movies making her a bit more plain. Alternatively, in the books, Hermione is generally pretty average looking from the perspective and her hair frizzy, but by the third movie, Emma Watson was clearly turning into a pretty young woman and her hair was no longer made to look quite so frizzy. I have long contended, particularly in Hermione's case, that these are just examples of how different the book and movie versions of the characters are. And THAT'S OKAY.

Why is that okay? First of all, when it comes to movie adaptations of books, I tend to believe that the best adaptations are more interpretations. Good adaptations should be done by fans of the original source material, but intelligent fans who have enough distance from the source material to be able to know what the story is about without obsessing too much on details that may be less important. My favorite example of an adaptation is Lord of the Rings. I love the books and the movies, but though they capture a similar plotline and a similar essence, they are truly different stories, but they are both grand and know what story they want to tell. My main problem with, say, the Harry Potter movie adaptations is that they're a bit scatter-brained, not just because of the different directors, but also because most of the earlier films didn't give strong enough hints of what this story was supposed to be about. I have no expectation that The Hunger Games movie will be just like the book, and I really hope it isn't. I want to watch something that takes the plot and the morals and the characters and shape them ever so slightly different to fit the very different medium that film is from novels. I want the actors to be good and the script to be strong and the effects to be well-done and all the elements of filmmaking to be well-executed, and if it isn't the same as the book, so long as it's well-made, I am totally okay with that.

Secondly, reality is not so easy to manipulate as the written world of a book and whatever live-action movies are, they are capturing something that was physically there, in reality, at some point (not counting CGI). Reality can be manipulated, but in a different way, for different reasons.

Finally, I want to break out of the boxes we have created for women. Katniss can still be Katniss even if her ribs aren't frighteningly protruding. I cannot accept the fact that women have to be defined by their appearance, that Katniss can only be a skinny girl, for instance. Stanley Tucci is a pretty fit individual, small and seemingly average in his weight and yet isn't Caesar Flickerman supposed to be rather rotund? I have not heard a single person complain that his stomach isn't the right size for the role. You may argue that that isn't the same, it doesn't define Caesar like it does Katniss, but Katniss is defined by much, MUCH more than her weight. If all Katniss was was a malnourished girl, she wouldn't be the strong character I believe her to be. Women's appearances are a part of who we are, certainly, but there is so much more that goes into defining ourselves, just like men, that I really wish we could stop placing more value on a woman's appearance than her other features. "The Girl Next Door" is more of a look than a personality type. "The Blonde Bombshell." "The Femme Fatale." These types and the many others women exemplify are so defined by appearance in our minds rather than attitude, and most of the categories really are about the attitude.

So, in conclusion, either the entire world needs to change or I really need to learn how to bite my tongue. Well, I've already got a scar from biting through my tongue a lot as a kid, I might as well keep up the hard work.

The Cultural Importance of Harry Potter and the Lack Thereof of the Twilight Saga.

I've never been a Twilight fan and I doubt I ever will be. This is unlike my initial distaste for Harry Potter when it first exploded onto the scene, because I've actually read parts of Twilight, I've seen the movies, and I still can't stand it. After I watched the second Harry Potter movie, I actually quite liked it and decided to give the books a shot and fell in love.

But the main thing that bothers me about Twilight is the fan culture, and I'm not talking about the rabid Taylor Lautner/RPattz fans. I'm talking about some of the major differences between the tiny generational divide of my age group, which grew up with Harry Potter, and the tween/teens now, who are growing up with Twilight.

The Harry Potter craze brought us fans who invented a musical genre, who helped kick off a renewed interest in reading and writing, and brought the famed sport of the books to life. Whereas the Twilight fans seem only capable of adorning their rooms with as much memorabilia as they can hunt down. Thanks to Harry Potter, I decided that I had wanted to be a writer, I actually ran a freakin' Harry Potter website for eight months (while having been a member of said site for nearly four years now), I downloaded albums of wizardrock (The Remus Lupins! Draco and the Malfoys!), and I have the guidebook to Quidditch because my school added a Quidditch team and I hope to bother to join soon enough.

It doesn't matter that, in my opinion, the Harry Potter books are much more well-written than the Twilight books (not sure I'd call them masterpieces, but they introduce interesting themes, well-rounded characters, and tell a classic, fascinating story) - what really matters to me in the debate of Twilight versus Harry Potter is the fandom. The question: What do these books contribute to the world?

Honestly, what can we say Twilight has contributed to the world? Heightened expectations in women of their perfect men that create FML stories like this one. Not to mention what a creepy-ass "guy" Edward Cullen is and how it's disappointing to see women of all ages wishing they had a man like him. Twilight has also spawned totally crazed fans that frighten me to death far more than the most rabid Harry Potter fan.

Sure, it's easy to say this now, three years after the final Harry Potter book was released and now that the storm has calmed, but even in my tween years, when I was one of those crazy Harry Potter fans, I was not adopting Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Tom Felton as my future lovers. Nor was I wishing that I could meet a man like Harry Potter. Why was that? Oh, because Harry isn't perfect - he's human, so to speak. A young man who spends paragraphs yelling because his hormones are out of whack and with a hero complex to shame... someone else with a huge hero's complex. J.K. Rowling treats her characters with enough respect to make them real.

Stephanie Meyer, however, has created Edward Cullen as a complete object. He is a dreamboat of perfection, of riches and chivalry and beauty. Bella is not much different with her Mary Sue flaw of clumsiness and beautiful individuality that attracts EVERYONE. Of course Harry gets attention; he's famous! What's Bella's excuse? And she hates it (whereas there is that beautiful moment in the sixth Harry Potter movie where Harry says defensively to Hermione, "but I AM the chosen one" and receives a thunk on the head), can't stand being who she is, is never comfortable with herself.

What kind of lessons can anyone take away from a story about a girl who has caring parents, is popular with girls and boys, beauty, and a bright life ahead of her but cannot be happy with any of it unless she has her man. It's worse than a Disney Princess! At least Jasmine gets pissed at Aladdin for lying to her, but Bella mopes and cries and tries to kill herself when Edward isn't around.

Harry Potter, on the other hand, teaches lessons of appreciating all those things in your life. Harry would be nothing without the strength of his friends, mentors, and everyone in his life. Harry is happy with himself most of the time - though being famous is hard work and he isn't pleased to be an orphan, even when he lives under the tyrannical rule of his aunt and uncle, he doesn't complain about it, merely makes the best of it with his wit and knowledge that life goes on. Seriously, we start off the first book with Harry pleased to look forward to going to a different school than his cousin so he could develop his own life. Even the much-hated epilogue of the final book provides that message: life goes on and it's worth living.

Twilight? Nothing's worth living for except hunky vampires and immortality.

Lessons aside, I've already listed the other cultural implications Harry Potter brought along. It has spawned so many excited and participatory fans that it is incredible. I met Harry and the Potters - I bought one of their freakin' T-shirts. I've dreamed of remaking the Harry Potter movies one day (though I doubt I'd bother nor would I probably be let to; it'll be too soon and the movies, for all their faults with continuity aren't bad). Harry Potter inspired me to do great things. I doubt Twilight could ever encourage such spirits. Musical genre? Collegiate sport? Literacy? Well, considering that Twilight is written the way that I wrote when I was thirteen...

Sure, I'm mean to Twilight, I'm hard on its fans. I can't blame people for liking the series; I'm sure that the right readers enjoy such tales. But there is nothing beneficial to take away from the books, and that they have succeeded Harry Potter as the "it" books is depressing because it is such a huge step down.

Oh popular culture. How interesting you are and how much I hate you until the Twilight movies are all made and freakin' over with.

...btws, rant was inspired by this interesting post over on incontention.com.

Granted, I haven't been to the movies aside from Harry Potter lately...

All caught up on How I Met Your Mother. Good timing too as it is now August and I vowed to read and finish Moby Dick this month (and I hope to read a few other books as well, including Pride and Prejudice and Zombies). And, as I have pointed out before, I cling tightly onto one or two pairings in all forms of entertainment that involve even a hint of romance (mostly and especially with television shows), and, yes, that pairing in HIMYM is indeed Barney/Robin.

New topic: Now, not long ago, both The Ugly Truth and Funny People were on my list of movies to go see. And even though The Ugly Truth got pretty bad reviews overall and Funny People's reviews were kind of eh, I still want to go see them (although I'm thinking I'll wait for The Ugly Truth to come out on DVD). Part of me enjoys seeing movies with mixed or not-so-great reviews because I might end up liking them anyway. Sometimes, it is really fun to disagree with the critic, audiences, or awards. I mean, I'm often sorely disappointed when I try to go against the critics and prove to myself that I can like a badly-reviewed film, but it happens. Why else have I seen Sleepover over a dozen times? So I still intend to go see Funny People. But this might also have to do with summer movies not impressing me much. Can there PLEASE be another awesome movie? Something as good, or nearly as good, as Up, mayhap? I am pouting.

Now excuse me while I lament my sad location of living. My parents are off to a wedding reception in an airport hangar (the farm where it was supposed to be is too wet, big shock). This is the utmost class.

OH and I saw Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince again. About the same reception as I had before: I liked it, surprisingly, but the actual plot of the Half Blood Prince is definitely slighted. Also, speaking of attractive skin? Both the youngest and younger Tom Riddle had extremely beautiful skin. That is all.

I Actually Liked a Harry Potter Movie! (this is big)

So it deviates from the book. What else is new with the Harry Potter movies? Since it's been a decently long time since I've read the books, I didn't freak out at any of the changes. And because of this, I actually got to enjoy this Harry Potter movie. Although, I have to say, the Harry/Ginny romance was frustratingly tame. What happened to the snogging in the book? It's not like they get to see each other AT ALL during the next book, so you can't be holding off any epic snogging for that. My only other complaint is that the Snape/Harry tension wasn't revisited properly. Considering it is so important in this installment, I am surprised at how few chances Harry and Snape got to seethe at each other. I've always been disappointed by the lessons being left out in the movies, but that's understandable as they would get boring and repetitive. But a couple Defense Against the Dark Arts lessons, or at least one, would have helped to cement Snape and Harry's hatred for each other, which would have made the final chase much more dramatic. Harry's confrontation with Snape at the end of the movie lacked the same passion and drama it had in the book.

But that's really my major complaint. Although the burning burrow scene was a bit useless and ridiculous, there's no reason for me to be upset about it. Considering how much Weasley subplot they've cut out and how we're not seeing any wedding there since Bill never appeared and Fleur's been absent since forever, why not burn the place down? So whatever, I don't give a rat's ass about that scene. It wasn't particularly productive, but it was a nice moment of drama, so I can't really complain. I've given up being a Book Purist. So long as it's good and keeps the general story alive while being entertaining and doing it well, I'm happy. And I think HBP: The Movie did a pretty good job of that.

Mind you, my friend and I spent half the movie making sex jokes. I blame it all on a friend of mine who, once upon a time, spent ages trying to convince me that Harry was in love with Draco based on the happenings of Half-Blood Prince, as Harry obsesses over Draco. It's all her fault.

But all in all, the movie was shot very well. The special effects were brilliant, and the acting was good. Honestly, this is the movie I think the kid actors finally hit their stride in. For the first time, I was not distracted by Emma Watson's eyebrows! In every other Harry Potter movie, her eyebrows are a massive distraction for me, but I didn't notice them this time, so either I didn't pay very close attention (I'll rewatch the movie and keep you posted) or else she actually started acting without them. MAJOR kudos to her if she stopped abusing her (lovely) eyebrows. Daniel Radcliffe, whose acting pissed me off in Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix (but that one's not his fault; Harry is OBNOXIOUS in OotP), did a good job this time. The Felix Felicis scene was pretty darn awesome, I have to say.

So overall, for once, I was genuinely pleased by a Harry Potter movie. It isn't the book in the least and I definitely like the books far more than the movies, but I enjoyed the movie and would deem it a job well done. Hardly OSCAR-worthy, as some critic baffled me to say (maybe save the effects, of course), but good. I could nitpick for ages, but that'd be useless. Good work. You finally got me, Warner Bros.

Also: HOLY SHIT @ Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince's gross revenue thus far. It ALREADY broke $100 mil!? I mean, that's worldwide, but still... oh no, don't tell me The Dark Knight's records are going to go bye-bye this soon. D:

Moar Movies To See

Okay, so that's a lie. There are other movies I want to see, I just don't have any bets on them being excellent, breathtaking, or maybe I just don't know that much about them. Either way, here are more movies I desire to see as they come out:


Taking Woodstock - I've heard it's not very great, but considering it was filmed in this area, I guess you can say I have an attachment to it. Plus, it just seems like it'd be a generally fun movie. Plus, I want to see if I can recognize any of the extras (they recruited at my school). It'll make me feel way hip and connected.

Bruno - It comes out tomorrow! It's going to be hilariously inappropriate and I will laugh. I like laughing. I still remember my documentary professor last semester, telling us that he was massively psyched for Bruno. After the stunt at the MTV movie awards (which were actually pretty entertaining save the fact that the actual awards were shit)... oh man. Being a lover of bizarre fashion (to an extent, I would never wear Bruno's clothes), I am excited. And inappropriate laughter. I love it all.

(500) Days of Summer - Joseph Gordon-Levitt is awesome and will do many a great thing. I rewatched 10 Things I Hate About You last night and considering that Brick is perhaps my favourite movie, I am feeling the JGL love right now. And Zooey Deschanel is also very cool. This movie sounds really sweet without intentionally being that way. And the dance number reminds me of Enchanted... in a good way.

The Hurt Locker - Not going to lie, I knew little about this until critics started raving about it. I don't watch much television, but I was watching recently and one commercial essentially commanded me to go see it. So, I suppose I will.

Julie & Julia - I missed all the Meryl Streep Is Amazing film history (I'll have to explore her filmography more extensively in the future), but I am in love with Amy Adams, and that the pair are together is awesome. I finally saw a preview at Public Enemies and it looked really adorable. And yummy. This is why I love Chocolat but can rarely rewatch it. It makes me crave chocolate so much.

Harry Potter 6 - Okay, I loved the Harry Potter books, not going to say they're the best things ever but they're good stories, but I've never been a big fan of the movies. They all feel lost between trying to be a Faithful Adaptation and Finding A New Voice. But I'll give 'em this - the previews always look AMAZING even if I've never been deeply in love with any of the movies.

The Ugly Truth - Another rom com sucks me in! But I can't help it, Gerard Butler's just too amazing for me to avoid. Also, Katherine Heigl is genuinely funny. I actually enjoyed 27 Dresses... to an extent. (Most) rom coms are only so good. I don't know that this movie will actually live up to be hilarious, but it could be, so I will probably give it a shot.

Funny People - This could either suck or be awesome. I am really hoping for the latter. I'd like to see Adam Sandler in a good movie again (You Don't Mess With the Zohan!? Bedtime Stories!?). Plus, I'd like to think that I trust Judd Apatow. We'll see.

Inglorious Basterds - Hilariously enough, as I was skimming old Entertainment Weekly magazines, I came across a note in a 2004 issue that made reference to Quentin Tarantino's long rumored "Inglorious Bastards project." Funny seeing it come to fruition five years later. I have no delusions this will be anything but what it's expected to be. But that doesn't mean it won't be enjoyable.


And there will be more as we get into the I Want An Oscar! season (aka: fall). But, for now, I'll settle for some not-top-notch quality movies. Who knows? They might even surprise me.

Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXIX

As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.




(**note: my opinions about Watchmen have shifted since this post. I liked it less the more I thought about it. Now I'd label it "okay, I sort of liked it, but not really that much.")

From March 8, 2009:

"Finally got to see it and just got back from the theatre.

The verdict?

I liked it. I really did like it. It is nowhere near as good or as resonating or as astounding as the graphic novel (not to build up the novel too much, despite my love for it), but it is certainly enjoyable. It's incredibly difficult, imo, to compress Watchmen into an under three hour film, but I think they managed pretty well. And, to be frank, it's kind of nice that I don't want to watch all the little things. They add so much into the graphic novels, all the smaller supporting characters, but when you're watching a movie, they're just distracting, so it is kind of nice that they were reduced... although I am a bit disappointed by the shortening of Rorschach's history. I thought the casting was all really good (Nixon's nose was really distracting though), the script was incredibly faithful to the novel, and I liked that the costumes were updated (I'm sorry, Ozymandias' costume, for one, would have been SO campy on screen... as would had everyone else's really). The music was generally cool but some of it was a bit weird. "Hallelujah" playing when Laurie and Dan get it on in Archie was really bizarre to me. But, overall, I thought it was good.

Of course, this is coming from the perspective of someone who has read the novel. I totally understand if people who have not read the novel, or who go in expecting it to be on par with the novel, don't like it, or even hate it. I saw it with two other people who had read the novel and two who haven't. Rachel, who hasn't read the graphic novel, hated it, for instance. There were a lot of little things that weren't really explained (Bubastis, for one) and just too much that couldn't be put on screen in a single movie that made it hard for non-fan viewers to really relate to it.

In the end, I think that, for fans who want a nice little complement to the graphic novel, who would like to see a film version that, while not as good, is still good enough to watch, Watchmen is the perfect creation. However, if you wanted to make a film that made the story more accessible to people who haven't read it, this isn't the best example (although it does a better job than, say, some of the Harry Potter films for explaining most things). If anything, I hope this prompts all fans who see it with their non-fan friends to say, like Jen insisted to Rachel, "well, read the graphic novel. It's better explained and just better overall."

I enjoyed it. I might not bother seeing it again in theatres, but I'll probably buy it when it comes out on DVD. I think it would be nice to watch when I'm just not feeling up to committing to rereading the graphic novel (it's like why I own the Harry Potter films... only, I like Watchmen the film better than the Harry Potter movies)."