MM
No, not the Mickey Mouse Club or the chocolate candies. Magic Mike. Yea, I said it. Yea, I saw it. Am I embarrassed/have regrets? No. Did I enjoy it? Umm, yea. I've heard lots of reactions about the movie; and being in the Bible Belt, a lot of them have been on the hostile, antagonistic side. This isn't a post defending my seeing it. I'm an adult who can see whatever the hell I want. It's more of a response, that'll probably get some flack, to people's reaction to the movie and the movie goers.
My friends and I scored some free tickets for an early showing. I think we saw it over a week early. Basically, we'll see pretty much any movie for free, so that played a huge part in our viewing of it. Yes, there was nudity in the movie, no actual penises but there was plenty of man butt. There was also some female nudity, I think I saw a total of four to six breasts. The movie, however, was not about nudity. Here's why (I think) it wasn't about nudity: the movie was targeted toward women> women's brains aren't wired the same as men's>yes, women like looking at abs (and there were plenty to go around)>typically, women's minds don't go directly to sex when looking at men they find to be attractive. So when women are watching this movie, they're likely enjoying: abs, man bottom, the riveting story line (LOL), the ridiculousness of the other women in the theater, the great dance moves, and a slew of fantastically fit dancing men. I can honestly say that I never, before/during/after, imagined having sex with any of those men in that movie. My brain just doesn't go there.
I'm not cheating on my husband. Not just because I don't have one. As a friend of mine said (paraphrasing), 'as I watched this movie, I kept thinking, I can't wait for my future husband to use those moves on me!'. What she said.
I have no attachment to any of these men. I don't want to marry/date any of them. They are actors, some of which are married, some of which who are gay. So there's no need for me to guard my heart from these naked, dancing characters. That movie didn't leave me feeling all romantic, not towards them, not towards anyone.
Lastly, if that movie offends you, don't see it. No one is threatening your life if you don't see it. And if someone is, well then just go see it to save your life. If anything, you'll learn some dance moves.
My friends and I scored some free tickets for an early showing. I think we saw it over a week early. Basically, we'll see pretty much any movie for free, so that played a huge part in our viewing of it. Yes, there was nudity in the movie, no actual penises but there was plenty of man butt. There was also some female nudity, I think I saw a total of four to six breasts. The movie, however, was not about nudity. Here's why (I think) it wasn't about nudity: the movie was targeted toward women> women's brains aren't wired the same as men's>yes, women like looking at abs (and there were plenty to go around)>typically, women's minds don't go directly to sex when looking at men they find to be attractive. So when women are watching this movie, they're likely enjoying: abs, man bottom, the riveting story line (LOL), the ridiculousness of the other women in the theater, the great dance moves, and a slew of fantastically fit dancing men. I can honestly say that I never, before/during/after, imagined having sex with any of those men in that movie. My brain just doesn't go there.
I'm not cheating on my husband. Not just because I don't have one. As a friend of mine said (paraphrasing), 'as I watched this movie, I kept thinking, I can't wait for my future husband to use those moves on me!'. What she said.
I have no attachment to any of these men. I don't want to marry/date any of them. They are actors, some of which are married, some of which who are gay. So there's no need for me to guard my heart from these naked, dancing characters. That movie didn't leave me feeling all romantic, not towards them, not towards anyone.
Lastly, if that movie offends you, don't see it. No one is threatening your life if you don't see it. And if someone is, well then just go see it to save your life. If anything, you'll learn some dance moves.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteHey Colea,
I think your provide an interesting point when you talk about seeing the movie "Magic Mike", and you make some good points in justification for watching the film. You are an adult and have the right to see any movie you want. That is correct, and is an area that I don't really have the "right" to get into, because I cant read your thoughts, and I think all art is in inherently existential, meaning that the interpretation of the subject or the person viewing said art is interpreted first by that person before anyone else. You can come up with your interpretation of a piece of art and it is not right or wrong even if it differs from the next person.
What concerns me is the idea that the controversy is inherently something that those in the "bible belt" need to just get over. Taking an existential view of art seems to be the all encompassing, non-approachable view that seems to saves a lot of people explaining why viewing something that might turn out to have controversial or macabre is good or bad.
My first question about your post is who are the people who have made the controversy? And do you know these people?
I know at Cassandra's birthday bash, I saw the poster and had a strange reaction to it. Krista overheard me say something very similar to what I just said in my first paragraphs, which seemed to be satisfying to her. Yet, if questioned, I was willing to go into detail, somewhat defending why you girls went to see the movie, but not in every way.
Similarly, there are various examples that I want to share that might give light to people who might wonder why someone saw this movie. Personally, I listen to a lot of music that many people would consider inappropriate to my worldview e.g. Slayer and Tool. But I have, many times argued that the existential part of interpreting any kind of art makes it okay for me to listen to this music so long as I understand the context and can rightly disconnect myself from people who write music clearly against God. Not all of their music is geared that way, but you can look at many types of art from different angles.
Part 2
DeleteUsing the analogy of Magic Mike, one might easily conclude that it's basically about a movie of broken people who find some sort of love and affirmation despite all the sin that might be around them. But is that really why people see the movie? Again, I respect your idea, and you only simply need to posit that you saw the movie because "you wanted to". To me that seems satisfying in it's own right.
But that doesn't get us out of the water when it comes to posit your view of art onto someone else. If anything those making the typical "bible belt" claims that this is trash is just as right as you or I, and they have the right to say so. Their view of art is clearly different than yours or mine, yet both sides, in an existential view point are neither right or wrong. The problem therefore lies in the inherent message of what someone "ought" to do. They claim the "ought" as we don't. Nobody "ought" to see the movie but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor does it mean that someone won't see the movie for the wrong intensions.
Getting a free ticket to any movie is not necessarily a good excuse to go see a movie, especially if you know what the movie is about. I wouldn't go see White Chicks if it was free simply because I think the movie is trash and would be a waste of my time. But if your curiosity to see the movie happens to be there, and you're going just to spend a couple hours "switching off your brain", again I must respect.
Here's where this existential view tends to get a little shaky. Because we have such a broad view of art, you need to understand exactly where the line is drawn when it comes to your specific tastes. I won't get into the issue that genocide is considered art, which in many cases, I've defended that the intensions of the artist, or author does matter in the fact that HE sins but his viewers might not. Can an existentialist like you and I rightly defend something a little more controversial? Let me give a few examples:
The movie "Showgirls" debuted in 1995, and I would think it was met with a lot of controversy on the grounds that it starred Elizabeth Berkley from Saved By The Bell. Apparently, this was her break-out role that tried to make her a serious actress. It did not for various reason. Mainly because the movie wasn't rated R it was rated NC-17 (by today's standards), which limited the viewing audience, and the movie was terrible. But essentially the movie is the same as Magic Mike. It has a lot or raunchy stuff like sex, and A LOT of nudity. It was basically a soft-core porn. Is it okay that men could've flocked to go see this movie? If a girl took his boyfriend to see Magic Mike, would it then be appropriate for the guy to take his girl to see Showgirls?
Part 3
DeleteThis brings up the problem of intensions. Why did you go see this movie? Was it for the love story, which was pretty shallow to begin with, or was it because you wanted to see some hot bodies of dudes? If so, here's another problem.
Admiring the looks of an individual is not wrong, nor is it something new to have such things be exploited in media to help sell products and get people in seats to see movies. Showgirls and Magic Mike are just two examples of how this happens.
But what happens when a person wants to look at the cover a fashion magazines and think that because this woman was photoshopped to make her look different from her regular appearance? Is a person wrong for looking, buying, promoting, viewing or embracing these photoshopped images to make her look 10-20 pounds less? On an existential viewpoint, I see nothing wrong with making magazine covers of women who couldn't possibly look like that in real life. That really puts a damper on people exclaiming that barbies set a wrong idea for children and teens that it is creating a conditioned image in the mind of young girls who want to look like something that is physically impossible. Art is existential.
If you want to hold the view that the media, like magazines or barbies conditions children/teens/adults to see something false rather than embrace their "true beauty", then I feel like the existential view point will fall short because that, in a sense, would be the same sort of proselytizing that "bible belt" people make with Magic Mike--just on the other side. In that case, we don't have the right to say that these things are wrong, or should be changed. In another sense, men could make a great case about Magic Mike and how that conditions boys to think that the only way to get a girl is to act in such a way promoted by movies like Magic Mike, or look like the guys who are in the movie. The act of seeing a movie because art is existential seems to be in contrast with those who want to reform media to a standard that seems more "real" out of fear for the influence of younger minds trying to embrace something that's not truly real.
And lastly, I want to ask, why did you see the movie? From what I gather about your snide reference to living in the "bible belt", there might be a certain sense of "sticking it to the man" when writing your blog entry. Saying "I saw the movie, I liked the movie, and I'm proud" in a certain sense implies a sort of rebellion to people who might have a problem with this movie's existence. I get the sense that you might be marginalizing these people into a cohesive group, when that might not necessarily be true. Since it is usually assumed that these people are just dumb rednecks that don't know how the real world works, having such a reductionistic attitude towards them might ungird their view that they view people who watch "trash" in the same marginalized light. So where do we go from here?
Hey Brian, thanks for commenting. There's definitely no snideness intended; I just often see people who are not just against/for something, but they are vehemently against/for and want everyone to know. Everyone IS entitled to their opinion, but when they say it is fact and that others are wrong for thinking otherwise, that's when I have a problem.
ReplyDeleteWhy did I see the movie? I like free movies. I like Channing Tatum movies. I wanted to see what all the fuss was/is about.
I understand and fully accept that 'normal' people don't look like photoshopped creations. I do realize people, men and women, feel pressure and distress in regards to looking like these 'mythical creatures'. That being said, I'm not (intentionally) pressuring anyone into looking like, or even acting like, people in the media. I look nothing like the magazine women/Barbies, so why would I expect others to? I think, in the media, it's very typical to see, or perceive, people as 'perfect' (or darn near) because they are made to look that way. I mean, they starve themselves, have personal trainers, personal chefs, and have money to alter their bodies. Who can keep up that?!
I hope this suffices as a response.
You've addressed most of my concerns about an existential viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteHowever your last paragraph only acknowledges the idea that such a photoshopped phenomenon does indeed exist. I think we agree on this. But is speaking on such a thing actually right or wrong on an existential viewpoint of art? You say that it's typical that such a thing happens, which is pretty much proven that it does happen. One only need to google search an inquiry to pull up those effects on people. Yet is speaking out on such 'brainwashing' is wrong?
Ultimately, it's their personal choice, but could it be that the manipulation pictures falls under the category art and nobody can really say anything about this type of manipulation? Is the woman promoting the disproportionate barbie dolls really doing something right? We see videos of how people "airbrush" models to look impossibly skinny, is it right to speak out against that?
I think with the existential viewpoint, our hands are cuffed in that category. For me, I'm willing bite the bullet and realize that those picture editors at magazine companies are just expressing their form of art. And one's personal choice is ultimately king when it comes to this. Nobody really has the right speak out against this. What do you think?
I think anyone has the right to speak out about things they find to be wrong/unjust/propaganda/etc, that's something they can control, self-regulate; whether their voice is heard, is another story. There are somethings I don't consider to be music, but others do so I respect that and carry-on with my life. It's not so important to me, that I want to make a crusade against it.
ReplyDeleteOur eyes are constantly in-taking images of 'perfect' human beings, it's no secret to anyone in the US. But I think not letting it effect your self-esteem and body-image comes from choices you make. There are times when I consciously will not intake certain magazines/shows/movies because I know it's detrimental to my self-esteem/body-image. It's a choice.