The Screening Room
Breakfast at Tiffany’s vs. She’s Gotta Have It: Cast Your Vote
By Jimi Izrael
When you have a sound clash, two sound systems battle records back and forth and the crowd decides the winner. Â I’m going to put two films head to head and compare them. At the end, I will declare a winner. You can cast your vote in the ‘comments’ section. This is a recurring feature of the Screening Room we call…. FILMCLASH!
Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a re-imagining of the wildly popular Truman Capote novel. It stars Audrey Hepburn as bohemian Holly Golightly and George Peppard as Paul Varjak, a writer and her neighbor who is being kept be a New York socialite. Mickey Rooney also does a turn in yellowface as the bucktooth Chinaman Mr. Yunioshi, which ends up being just another racist caricature on his resume, as he also did some blackface with Judy Garland, . . . forgive me if I can’t remember the film just now.
 So basically, Tiffany’s is the story of how a girl from the sticks (Holly) goes to the big city in search of a life better than her own. She creates a persona and a whole backstory about herself, but it turns out that her real life is a lot less glamorous than she would have us believe. She kind of creates this scene around herself, in the hopes that some of that will rub off on her. She is, to put it politely, a woman of easy virtue. Her favors are for sale, and Edwards does a good job finessing that for a film of this era. The cinematography is great— I love the shots of her dinner party and of course, the opening shot of her dining on a bagel in a fine evening dress outside of Tiffany’s. The music, Henry Mancini’s “Moon River” would go on to become something of a classic. The way it’s woven into the film gurantees you will be humming it by the end, which is both good and bad. While immortalizing the little black dress, this film arguably made Audrey Hepburn a bonafied star. This, in my estimation, is her definitive role.  It’s widely available on DVD.
She’s Gotta Have It is Spike Lee’s first feature film fresh out of film school (Joe’s Bedstuy Barbershop: We Cut Heads was his thesis). An indy film cast on the cheap, notably it stars Tracy Camilla Johns (who got a best actor nomination) as Nola Darling, a layout artist and Spike Lee casting himself as Mars Blackmon (a character later revived for Nike commercials), a bike messenger dating well above his caste. Nola has surrounded herself with an army of lovers not with the intention of them buying her favor, rather, she is just a wanton woman. She likes sex, she likes variety and she is unapologetic— a progressive idea for a black film, turning the lusty Brown Sugar archetype on its head, empowering the woman wto define her own sexuality. She is clearly involved with so many men just for the sex of it: Mars puts it on her ghetto-style, Greer puts it down in that laid back, Keith Sweat way and Jamie is that sensitive brother, who, in all likelihood, spends all his time on his knees eating pussy. Nola also clearly has some father-figure issues that don’t get serviced well by the script, which would have informed us, I thought. I was amazed at Spike’s ability to write for a female protagonist. The writing, generally, is well above average, and his spot-on characters, aside from the Woody Allen/Scorsese-ism he uses cinematically, become the hallmark of his films. Shot in stunning black and white with a lot of interiors, Spike Lee’s Brooklyn is warm and romantic. Musical duties are handled by Bill Lee, Spike’s dad. Normally, nepotism of this kind backfire, but here it works, as it will work for a number of films after. I don’t think the soundtrack did anything after this. It’s only recently available on DVD.
Ok.
 Before we go much further, it’s probably important for me to tell you that Blake Edwards’ reworking of Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s offends my sensibilities as a writer. A LOT. Edwards’ Golightly is a devil-may-care bohemian who is often dependent on the kind donation of the occasional male suitor. You and I would see Capote’s Golightly as a hoe. Flat-out. She goes on dates, and she offers pussy for sale. She’s not a street-walker, but she’s a little closer to that girlfriend you have who only goes out with men who make enough money to possibly pay her rent. Once that exchange has been established, then she breaks them off some ass. That girl who goes to  and orders two Samaurai Triples one to eat there and one to take home and eat tomorrow night? that’s Holly Golightly. She is the Madonna Ciccone prototype: one in a never-ending parade of young girls who caught a bus to New York in search of the glamourous life only to end up trying to fuck their way into a better position. Sometimes it works. Sometime you get fucked up in the game. Like Holly does. Edwards’ Golightly hints at this, but the script back-pedals, as it also soft-soaps Peppard’s character. So it’s hard for me to look at the film without some prejudice, as a fan of Capote’s novel. Capote himself was not at all fond of the film. Taking the film for what it’s worth, it’s hard not to like Hepburn as the wayward Holly, looking for a meal ticket and an entrée into the Life. I think if I have a problem it’s that this film has a sappy ending. The cat is a great metaphor, but c’mon. These stories never end like this. I know, I know—it’s Blake Edwards. But Jesus Christ. I don’t know if the ending works, even for its time. She’s supposed to be so hot in this film, but Hepburn did nothing for me at all. She needed to eat a meal, man. Put some ass on that lass, as Ed Bundy used to say.
She’s Gotta Have It  doesn’t owe anything to a novel, but certainly the novel mythology of the new Black Woman, a woman who owns her sexuality and lives in a world where men respect that. That world does not exist. And it won’t. Nola Darling is not a hoe she’s a freak, which is a lot of ways is much, much worse. Spike’s Blackmon says it best: “A lot of men want to sleep with a freak, but no one wants a freak for a wife.” That is, the classic “you can’t make a hoe into a housewife” maxim. Hoes use sex to volley for position, and that is forgivable. It’s part of the hustle. But once a freak, always a freak. If all a woman likes is sex, then she will have sex with anyone, and you could lose a lot of sleep wondering where your girl is and what she is up to. She behaves like men behave, and no man wants that kind of woman in his life, long-term. Because ultimately, she will fly away or sleep with your manzenem. Jamie Overstreet is really the only brother delusional enough to think he can change Nola and make her into wife material. Jamie is a fucking fool. Blackmon wants to make Nola into a baby-mama, and Greer wants to take her all high-society. They are all trying to change Nola into something she can never be. This is a powerful movie that asks a lot of important questions that go unanswered, and these ultimately are my favorite kind of movies: films that start with and end with impossible questions, and these films, as well as the lead characters, have that in common.
Can either Holly or Nola remake themselves? Should they have to? What are the risks for women flouting conventional ideas bout female sexuality? Is this some kind of empowering new feminism? I dunno. For me the answer is clear: I couldn’t really fuck with either one of these chicks. Fun to watch, they are shallow human tragedies, jumping form bed to bed, situation to situation looking for something they may never, ever find. It’s not a good look. Both are wanna-be hoodrats, with just enough class to get seated at the better tables. But just. These women are Superheads’s fairy god-mothers: Vanguards of Stripper Feminism.
 Both films deal with a kind of hoe: Golightly is uptown, bohemian hoe, broke with no job. Nola is a downtown, village artsy hoe, educated with a job. Nola is an honest, likable character. Holly is a trifling, lyin’ mess—the kinda chick who lies about the weather— but she’s so much fun, you can forgive her inconsistencies. Nola yearns for intimacy, and Holly is willing to trade intimacy for the feeling security, which she gleans from material possessions and the Life. Once Holly’s background becomes clear, we know that she is looking for a father figure, just like Nola. You sympathize with both of them. You KNOW both of them.Â
They both live in worlds surrounded by people that service their character well. Edwards’ New York and Lee’s Brooklyn are both vibrant and alive. Spike, as an indy filmaker, gets extra points for doing more with less. Edwards takes a knock for Mr. Yunoshi, a completely throw-away character only there to appeal to America’s post-war prejudices. Edwards takes another knock for watering down Capote’s book. Lee’s lesbian character Opal, was useless, but informative, and made us ask about Nola’s sexuality, and where Opal might fit in the future, or maybe even in the present, on the down-low. This is a close FilmClash.
I vote She’s Gotta Have it, for the win. What’s your vote?
- Recommend this?
-
Email This
Loading ...This story is filed under: Entertainment, The Screening Room
Now on Black Power
-
PoliticsBarnes and Noble Store Window Features Obama Alongside Monkey Book *UPDATE* B & N Spokesperson Issues Apology -
Pop VulturesNew Orleans 9th Ward resident and Trouble the Waters star, Kimberly Rivers, aka, Black Kold Madina Goes from the Hurricane to The Rap Game
-
A Guy Named LeonLifestyleCelebrity Resolutions The New Year's Resolutions I'd Like to See Famous People Make
-
Arts & CultureJohn Hope Franklin, the Prince Who Refused the Kingdom Henry Louis Gates Eulogizes John Hope Franklin
- Barnes and Noble Store Window Features Obama Alongside Monkey Book *UPDATE* - 202 emails
- Two Arizona Female Teens Accused of Pimping Other Girls - 40 emails
- Who Really Killed Malcolm X? An Exclusive Interview with Khalil Islam Who Spent 22 Years in Prison for His Murder - 28 emails
- Please Don’t Be Black - 28 emails
- Farajii Muhammad Leads a New School of Leaders - 24 emails
- Shocking Numbers Show African American Community Flourishing During Recession - 22 emails
- Black Iraqis in Basra Face Racism - 20 emails
- Women by Design - 16 emails
- See Baby Discriminate. Can Babies Be Racist? - 14 emails
- I Just Don’t See Her in the White House - 12 emails
Black Power Announcement
NEW!! Blackpower.com is tired of listening to the same 10 songs on the radio too. So we’re starting an “Emerging Artists Series” where we’ll feature the music of up and coming musicians. We want to showcase new talent that advances the art. If you are an upcoming musician,and are interested in being featured in our showcase, please  send us an email with your music/video/footage and a bio. Let us know why you should be featured. All genres of music are welcome from rock to hip hop to R & B to Yiddish wedding music. Solo acts and groups are welcome.  Send submissions to submit@blackpower.com and put “Emerging Artist” in the subject line. We look forward to hearing from you.
Blackpower.com welcomes great minds and great writers.  We offer diverse points of view, from right to left and everywhere in between.   We would love to see your stories on politics, technology, entertainment or Russian puppet-making. Its all good. For more information, please contact us at info@blackpower.com.
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/blackpower2008
Your comments are extremely misogynistic. Are you a homosexual? Why do these women have to be hoes or freaks? While you make one or two good points the majority of this article is garbage. Breakfast at Tiffany’s was written in 1958 with the movie following in 1961. The movie going public was hardly ready to accept a courtesan as a leading lady. This was evidenced by the fact Harper’s Bazaar was to publish the story initially but declined when Capote would not edit the profanity or change Holly’s occupation. The whole idea of making the movie was to make money not make a statement on women of that time. As an FYI men have been making “hoes into housewives†for centuries. Take a dozen men from any walk of life and check the pedigree of their spouse and you’ll be surprised at what you’ll find. The law of nature dictates that women seek out the strongest protector and provider for her offspring. If that means being a freak or a hoe to make that happen then oh well. Some of the men you refer to would not want to marry a Condoleezza Rice or Oprah Winfrey. They may not date Superhead either but only because she’s too well known. Let a different women with her looks and same sexual pedigree come along and they will move heaven and earth to make her theirs. It’s amazing to me that any man would judge the morality of Nola Darling. Men whore around with as many partners as they want. Some how a women having more then one sexual partner taints her. Grow Up! In today’s society with the advent of birth control and disease prevention added to a women’s ability to provide comfortably for herself and her offspring has given way to an equal playing field in the sexual arena. I want a man in my life. I need a man in my life. However I have a life and until I find that one man who can be my everything…to quote another Spike Lee Joint “I’m gone get me some of that more better†with as many different men as I choose.
Let The Choir Say Amen.
> LadyByDay
Lady By Day, get yours. And you can call a pancake a skateboard, if you choose. MOst men would call both of these women hoes, jump-offs, et al. Whether that is right or not is not up to me, but up to the audience, which may be what makes these films great.
Oh…I’m sure I can speak for all mankind when I thank you for your discovery of the heretofore unknown “double-standard.” Thanks for illuminating that.
> jimi izrael
Peace Jimi,
I have to agree with LadyByDay on the misogynist tone of some portions of this article. I opened the link to read it because Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of my all time favorite movies, hands down, and I finished reading it very disappointed.
Though you give a wonderful, in depth analysis of both films in the beginning, the article then dwindles into unnecessary slanders. Seriously, how many times must you say the word hoe, or freak? We got the point after the first three or four times. You ask such provocative questions as if you are in tune with the villainization of female sexuality, then you do the exact same thing. Confusing, to say the least.
The repetitious use of derogatory words is both unnecessary and insulting to female readers, in what was otherwise a very well-written, thought-provoking analysis.
Based on your above comment, your intent was not to offend, but to characterize these women as most men might. So, I say to you, if your intent was not to sound exactly like “most men”. you failed miserably.
But, to get this comment back on track, my vote is for Breakfast at Tiffany’s. Moon River always makes me cry, it’s one of Audrey’s best performances. She’s such a lost little girl searching for….something she can’t even yet describe.
Ironically, speaking on LadyByDay’s point about double standards, this film shatters that by making Paul a “gigolo.” They look at each other and see better. They see the good in each other, that individually, they can not see in themselves.
I get choked up just thinking about it!
Once again, very well-written article, and on-point analysis. Go a little easier on us next time though, huh?
Respect,
Kirsten
> Kirsten
Peace Kirsten.
While I take your point, and your vote, I reject the notion that every criticism that involves a woman or multiple women, and/or the behavior of same in any way delineates contempt or co-signs violence or violent action to woman kind. That’s a nonsensical notion that doesn’t hold water.
“Misogyny” is a term 70s-era feminists use to diffuse frank dialog, deflect responsibility from their own complicity in sexism and make excuses for “bad” behavior. As a result, this word has lost it’s intellectual weight, as if.
It would be difficult to discuss these two films without discussing their dominant thesis: “who’s sexuality is it, anyway?” We can’t have that convo without discussing the ugly tropes that shadow sexually liberal women. Language is important, yes. But I think the point of both of these works (more Have It than @Tiffs, natch) is to flesh out these conversations in a frank, honest way.
Men and women are likely to have that conversation differently. And with all the finger-wagging at me, we still don’t have an answer. What up wit dat?
Thanx for reading… and your vote.
> jimi izrael
I’m a Holly fan. Not because my wife tells me to vote for her but b/c I’d rather deal with a trifling but fun hoe rather than a trifling and hurtful hoe. Nola is a hurtful hoe.
I thought Mr.Yunoshi was supposed to be a substitute for Capote (some weird allegory)?
But, since you phrased it in terms of films…I
‘ll still choose Tiffany’s. hahaha
> Chris Chambers
Peace Jimi,
I’ll be frank with you. By the blatant misogynist tone of your article, and subsequent responses, it’s almost as if you’re purposely going for shock value, and I find that unfortunate…and unnecessary.
““Misogyny†is a term 70s-era feminists use to diffuse frank dialog, deflect responsibility from their own complicity in sexism and make excuses for “bad†behavior. As a result, this word has lost it’s intellectual weight, as if.”
^Are you serious? Misogyny has only lost “intellectual weight” to ignorant men intent on disguising disrespect as honesty.
Your repeated use of derogatory terms is a complete waste of words, and while men and women do need to have honest discussion on “who’s sexuality is it anyway,” the start of that discussion here has been two women telling you they find your words offensive, and instead of acknowledging that, you’ve made it your mission to explain to us why we should not be offended. That’s not a conversation, that is a lecture, and a very mis-guided one at that.
“I reject the notion that every criticism that involves a woman or multiple women, and/or the behavior of same in any way delineates contempt or co-signs violence or violent action to woman kind. That’s a nonsensical notion that doesn’t hold water.”
^I completely agree, which is why I didn’t say that it does. The point of my response is not that by you calling these two women hoes, you are calling all women hoes; the point is the antiquated, immature, disrespectful, repetitious use of a term better suited for a 10th grade locker room, than a mature discussion on sexuality.
So, to answer your question: “What are the risks for women flouting conventional ideas bout female sexuality?”
The main risk is being perceived as a hoe, freak, or hoodrat by men who’s mentality has not yet caught up with the century; but that is a risk we, as women, should be willing to take for the freedom of expressing our sexuality as we see fit.
Respect,
Kirsten
> Kirsten
Peace Kirsten.
Once again, I take your point,and I give it its due. The problem, of course, is that I don’t think I have ever, ever, ever heard anyone suggest that language used to discuss/describe/deconstruct black men– ranging from “thug” to “pimp” to “misogynist,” was over-the-top or unduly pointed. Not ever.
Your brand of sexism, for me is particularly odious, as the argument seems to hinge on my willingness to suspend my critical mind and free thought in favor of talking(writing) down to a mass audience, because… well… we’re in mixed company.
Uhm. No. I am not so inclined to participate in that brand of soft sexism. I am inclined to speak as a man, because I am a man, with the thoughts of men. I am not a reformed man, or a reconstructed man or a particularly enlightened man. I am just a man like other men. The reason this conversation is hard to have in the real world is because there is a resistance to having it honestly.
I try to draw some distinction here about analyzing the text and my own opinion of the thesis as a tool for the reader so they will know that, as a single father of a daughter, I’m a stake-holder who makes no claims of objectivity. I can apologize for your feelings being hurt, but >shrugs< that’s a lame, shallow apology, at best. As a writer, my commitment is to The Page, not your feelings about what’s on it.
All in, I think it’s ok and sex-positive for a woman to have as many lovers as her body can stand. I think it’s ok for men to do the same. But I think there are ramifications in both scenarios, and those aren’t jimi’s rulez.
And as for the term “misogynist.” Even feminists will tell you that pre-60s, this was a term mostly applied to men who raped and killed women. Misogynists were serial rapists and killers of women. Rude men who said and did offensive things were “cads” or “brutes.” Today, the word has come to mean a man who doesn’t like (e.g. sexually) or expresses contempt for women, as in, woman-kind, not specific women or specific behavior of same. If language is as important as you say it is, Kirsten, then better to be precise than fad-ish, no matter how many people use and over-use a word, I say.
All the laboratory feminists who (rightly) see it as their mission to quell the voices of male aggression, sexism and exploitation of women? Where are these women, as Karrine Steffans–a role model, Oprah Winfrey tells us– readies her third book, where she instructs young women–YOUNG women–on how to suck dick to get ahead?
Ask yourself a question:
Who hates women more: me, who occasionally makes honest, pointed observations about specific caricatures of women, or the beauty-shop feministas who try to boycott rap music (from the dancefloor) but can’t bring themselves to shout-down a woman who advocates using sex as a commodity?
Back to the film’s text, do these women have a right to exploit themselves, and then, do they have a right to complain about how the world will treat them? We must as the question in the language of men, because I am a man, and I am posing the question. Some folks can’t handle the truth. What I think is you should remix this FilmClash! with a feminist’s perspective.
I, for one, would LOVE to read that.
> jimi izrael
Peace Jimi,
***Because you touched on so many points, I broke your statement up to address each one fully.***
Once again, I take your point,and I give it its due. The problem, of course, is that I don’t think I have ever, ever, ever heard anyone suggest that language used to discuss/describe/deconstruct black men– ranging from “thug†to “pimp†to “misogynist,†was over-the-top or unduly pointed. Not ever.
^^^I have never either. Probably because black men write/ perform so many songs describing just how much of a thug/pimp they are (and if not, how they aspire to be so), while using hateful language towards women, that to twist that into a form of criticism would be pointless, when it’s considered, by some, to be a compliment, and an accomplishment.
____________________________________________
Your brand of sexism, for me is particularly odious, as the argument seems to hinge on my willingness to suspend my critical mind and free thought in favor of talking(writing) down to a mass audience, because… well… we’re in mixed company.
^^^Jimi, that is laughable. My argument does not hinge on your suspending your critical mind and free thought. My argument is with the repetitious use of derogatory language/concepts to describe certain women, and your subsequent comments defending your position, when it is not only disrespectful, but unnecessary. How you can claim to be “critical,†and then make such an asinine statement as – “She behaves like men behave, and no man wants that kind of woman in his life, long-term. Because ultimately, she will fly away or sleep with your manzenem,â€- is beyond me. That is one of the most stereotypical statements I’ve read in a very, very long time, and also one requiring not a shred of critical thought. This may come as a shock, but the target audience for Breakfast at Tiffany’s is decidedly female, therefore berating your readers continuously with your personal perceptions of sexually free women as freaks and classless is –in my opinion- unfortunate.
____________________________________________
Uhm. No. I am not so inclined to participate in that brand of soft sexism. I am inclined to speak as a man, because I am a man, with the thoughts of men. I am not a reformed man, or a reconstructed man or a particularly enlightened man. I am just a man like other men. The reason this conversation is hard to have in the real world is because there is a resistance to having it honestly.
^^^You don’t have to be inclined to participate in anything, Jimi. Nor, should you insinuate that your train wreck of thought when it comes to “freaks,†“hoes,†and “hoodrats,†is the view of all men. That you are neither reformed, reconstructed, nor particularly enlightened is obvious; but one doesn’t have to be to realize that your words are potentially insulting to many people, and rightfully so.
_____________________________________________
I try to draw some distinction here about analyzing the text and my own opinion of the thesis as a tool for the reader so they will know that, as a single father of a daughter, I’m a stake-holder who makes no claims of objectivity. I can apologize for your feelings being hurt, but >shrugs< that’s a lame, shallow apology, at best. As a writer, my commitment is to The Page, not your feelings about what’s on it.
^^^I apologize if you have been lead to believe I require, or desire, an apology from you. Actually, I couldn’t care less about one if I tried. I’m too busy, along with my husband, trying to raise two young men who won’t call young women such as your daughter a freak or a hoe based on an outsider’s view of how she chooses to express herself sexually. I should be thanking you for strengthening my resolve.
______________________________________________
All in all, I think it’s ok and sex-positive for a woman to have as many lovers as her body can stand. I think it’s ok for men to do the same. But I think there are ramifications in both scenarios, and those aren’t jimi’s rulez.
^^^I agree completely. Personally, I do have an issue with women who cheapen their most sacred for monetary gain; however I don’t pass judgment because one never knows the psychological state of these women, nor their individual circumstance. Call me “traditional”, but I think sex is special, and should be shared with a select number of people, but no one should feel they have a moral authority, or gage someone else’s moral compass by their own.
_____________________________________________
And as for the term “misogynist.†Even feminists will tell you that pre-60s, this was a term mostly applied to men who raped and killed women. Misogynists were serial rapists and killers of women. Rude men who said and did offensive things were “cads†or “brutes.†Today, the word has come to mean a man who doesn’t like (e.g. sexually) or expresses contempt for women, as in, woman-kind, not specific women or specific behavior of same. If language is as important as you say it is, Kirsten, then better to be precise than fad-ish, no matter how many people use and over-use a word, I say.
^^^This, from the man who uses the term hoe to describe certain women and not a garden tool; and freak to describe certain women and not an aberration of nature. I really don’t think I’m the one being faddish.
You came across as very misogynistic in that you appear to agree in your article with the mother/whore; virgin/whore dichotomies which are two of the cornerstones of misogyny, as well as a conveyed contempt for women who “act like men.†I don’t call that being a “brute,†or a “cad.†I call it being exactly what it is…misogynistic. I am not inclined to discuss nuances and semantics with you, nor do I care if you agree. But use of the term is most assuredly not a fad, but correct –dating back to Greek literature and philosophy- and will always be correct in spite of fluctuations in societal usage.
_____________________________________________
All the laboratory feminists who (rightly) see it as their mission to quell the voices of male aggression, sexism and exploitation of women? Where are these women, as Karrine Steffans–a role model, Oprah Winfrey tells us– readies her third book, where she instructs young women–YOUNG women–on how to suck dick to get ahead?
Ask yourself a question:
Who hates women more: me, who occasionally makes honest, pointed observations about specific caricatures of women, or the beauty-shop feministas who try to boycott rap music (from the dancefloor) but can’t bring themselves to shout-down a woman who advocates using sex as a commodity?
^^^Really?!! Oprah should be ashamed of herself. For me to even begin to discuss my distaste and anger at women such as Karrine Steffans would take another couple of hours. I abhor her and what she represents. I think she’s ignorant, classless, and disguises her inability in using the brains in her head as pride in giving “superhead†to superstars of her choice in exchange for infamy. I have written numerous articles and poems about the hypocrisy of women demanding respect from men, yet not respecting themselves. However, that is not the discussion we’re engaged in. The issue here is your words, and the apparent underlying contempt you have for women who choose to enjoy sex with whomever they choose for whatever reason -in general, not individually. With your statement about being a single father, I can better understand your harsh view point. If I had daughters I was attempting to raise with dignity and to have understanding of their priceless value, I might be a little less objective as well. It still doesn’t mean I agree with you; but that is the beauty of debate, is it not?
_____________________________________________
Back to the film’s text, do these women have a right to exploit themselves, and then, do they have a right to complain about how the world will treat them? We must as the question in the language of men, because I am a man, and I am posing the question. Some folks can’t handle the truth. What I think is you should remix this FilmClash! with a feminist’s perspective.
I, for one, would LOVE to read that.
^^^Funny how you equate truth with the language of (some) men.
I won’t be writing the remix of your FilmClash. It seems to me you equate feminism with romanticizing promiscuity, which could not be further from the truth. I would never do so; the issue is you making promiscuity, immorality, faithlessness, classlessness, and being disloyal one in the same. Albeit different verbiage and tone, our analysis would be quite similar, and if you haven’t noticed yet, I’m not a fan of unnecessary repetition.
But once again, I enjoyed your review of both films, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on others as well.
Respect,
Kirsten
> Kirsten
Leave a Reply