Tuesday, April 10 (2)

I am writing about Jennifer Montgomery's Age Twelve: Love With a Little L

Although the message of adolescent sexual frustration between girls was very prevalent, I really think there was unnecessary things that needed to be in the film.
Exhibit A: peeing
Yes, I can see how these women were marking territory like animals. For women's impowerment, I believe this can be a powerful statement. And the girl pissing on the rooftop was alright. It seemed to me that she was marking territory that really did not have a strong resonance as to what it was. This can illustrate that girls do not really have a place to mark, or that they do not really know where. However, when she pissed on the girl in the bathtub, I see that as completely unnecessary. That kind of thing is just shocking and disturbing. That could be the statement, but it really is not something that anyone should be watching, at least not me.
Exhibit B: tampon
Yes, there was a point to a woman taking out a piece of something completely feminine that men really do not understand. It is something I do not understand, and I can readily admit that. However, I do NOT need to see a bloody tampon come out of a woman and rubbed around a canvas to drive home that point, or any point for that matter. Some things are kept private for a reason. Would a woman want to see a man cleaning off his genitals, or masturbating and wiping the sperm around on a canvas? I know that I wouldn't, whether I understand that or not. I believe those graphic illustrations of women's empowerment are unnecessary, and could definitely be illustrated in a more tactful manner.

Tuesday April 10, 2007

I am a little behind, so two posts are in order today.

It is my contention that, even though Scott Stark wanted to show the transition of the "we" 60's and 70's into the "me" 80's through the work of Jane Fonda with respect, his representation through context and format overshadowed his respectful message.

Scott Stark attempted to show the shift of people, including celebrity from "we" to "me" by showing Jane Fonda at protests and rallies in the 60's and also doing workout videos in the 80's. He wanted to show that the silly things like workout videos should be overshadowed by the great things Jane Fonda did as a political activist. However, this only becomes apparent if you read the article he wrote about it.

I believe that film should be able to be taken out of context and understood. I believe the meaning should be able to be accessible to anyone willing to watch and discuss. I don't believe the viewer should really have to "go the extra mile" so to speak, and not be met halfway. Scott Stark made his message too ambiguous, and his choice of costume and venue as a part of his performance, to me, negated the intelligent things that Jane Fonda was a part of and made it overshadowed by something as ridiculous as a workout video.

I think this video was meant to say "Yeah, Jane Fonda has done some silly things like plugging a workout video, but she has done this great stuff for the "we" of our country." And to me, whether Scott Stark realizes it or not, this video says "Yeah, Jane Fonda has done some worthwhile stuff, but look at this stupid, pointless shit that she is going to get remembered for." What sticks out is the pointless stuff, rather than the important. And I think that does not give the credit that truly is due.