(no subject)

[andrewducker]

Just added this one to the archive. Ooh, I got to use the word apposite!

It's amazing how much the context of a film changes its impact. I loved Fight Club because I knew almost nothing about it before I walked into the cinema, I felt let down by The Matrix because so many people had told me it was intelligent and deep, I was put off U-571 by knowing that it was factually inaccurate and I can happily say that watching Trainspotting with your parents makes it feel like a whole different film...

I'd seen Gingersnaps a year or so ago, and it came across as a fun, smart horror flick. Nothing hugely special, but definitely better than the huge number of churned out slasher movies. Watching it with a couple of girls, however, definitely moved it up the scale a several notches.

Scenes which were merely background to me assumed new significance when they obviously resonated with the girls. The whole menstruation/puberty/transformation/lycanthropy metaphor seemed much more apposite and the whole mood of the film clicked into focus far better than when I watched it with an all male audience.

So, if you fancy seeing a darkly humorous take on the werewolf genre, where a young woman is cursed to an obsession with blood, strange physical changes, unexpected hair growth and mood swings that go just a little further than most, I recommend you pick this one up. Especially if you have someone female to watch it with.

Score: 6.5, 8 if watching it in female company.

ObQuote:
Brigitte: Are you *sure* it's just cramps?
Ginger: Just so you know, the words 'just' and 'cramps', they don't go together.
__
Ginger: "No-one ever thinks chicks do shit like this. A girl can only be a slut, bitch, tease or the virgin next door. We'll just coast on how the world works."

Comments

[broin.livejournal.com]

I hated that movie. Not just because the references to femaledom felt shallow, but because it was *incredibly* predictable.

It was like 'She's All That'. The message is: Don't be true to yourself - instead, get a makeover and boys will love you for you you rally are, sort of.

It was clumsy. I was sorely disapointed. But coped. =)

[andrewducker]

I don't understand why you think that was the message of the film. In fact, I can't see any message to the film at all. It certainly commented on some things (like the ascribed positions of women in society), but I cant' see that it came to any conclusions.

And you didn't cope, unless ranting in your LJ about your hatred of it counts as coping :-P

Re:

[broin.livejournal.com]

Well, it was the bit where the chick walks down the hallway, and is the Sexy. It felt like such a humdrum thing for a movie to do. Y'know?

And it was in slo-mo, too. Real turn off.

[andrewducker]

That was showing off the animal magnetism and the fact that she was using and exuding sexuality. It wasn't, to me, saying "do this", it was trying to get across the affect she was having on those around her.

The best bit of that scene, for me, was the shocked looked on her sister's face at the end of it, because she knows exactly how badly it's going to end for all involved.

Trivia

[(Anonymous)]

The creepy rat-faced younger sister, who was Beverly Marsh in the 'IT' miniseries, is apparantly 25.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I thought it was a pretty good film totally let down by the rubber monster at the end. They should have stopped when she was at the cool maned toothed, clawed but still human shaped stage as that looked good and scary and way more realistic.

I'm suprised that you didn't mention the awfulness of the rubber monster.

"The whole menstruation/puberty/transformation/lycanthropy metaphor " is so obvious, not to say almost cliched that I'm surpised it took you watching it with women to get into it. I mean it's not like you haven't hung around with a lot of women.

There's nothing worse than some guy wondering if you are chewing his head off cos of PMT (nope) or just cos you are a bad tempered bitch (yup) or just cos he's done something idiotic (maybe).

I've got the right colour of hair though - undyed, as it is right now, it is a rather cool wolf-pelt-like silvery grey :-)

[andrewducker]

cliched? I've seen Alan Moore use it for a single Swamp Thing issue. Other than that I've not bumped into it before.

And I don't know if _you_ suffer from PMS, but I've known woman that do.

I considered mentioning that 1:32 into the film it spoils it all by showing you the monster, but honestly it was better than a good chunk of the werewolf effects Iv'e seen.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Ok, maybe it is just obvious to me cos I'm female.

PMS - I don't know. I do get some nasty moods (as you know). I've never tried to track whether they are hormone related (it would be very pointless given that I have no regular cycle whatsoever and never had have), however, I suspect not.

I don't believe that any of it is uncontrollable. It may be bloody difficult, especially since most people allow emotion to dictate their actions without enough thought.

[andrewducker]

I don't believe that any of it is uncontrollable.

The whole issue of control and controllability is one that interests me very much. There's a whole school of thought that says that the vast majority of what happens is subconscious, with our conscious mind being informed of it a few microseconds later. If this is not the case, then out subconscious clearly has a lot of effect on what we do and want to do.

But I'd be fascinated to have any idea of why some people can't not eat the candy, while others can stand still while someone chops off their finger "because honour demands it"

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Fascinating to be sure, but possibly partly just a semantic issue with the definitions of conscious and sub-conscious. I don't consider it an either/or thing generally. (well except maybe when I sleepwalk - but that may just be a memory-recording flaw/failure/alternative mode). I see it as more of a continuum, our actions are ultimately the results of parallel processing.

I can't see that you could ever (say) shout at someone (at least in words, and words that made approximate sense) without some form of mostly deliberate conscious act. You could hit someone in a far less conscious way, but unless they had actually jumped you out of the blue (or you were asleep, or sleepwalking) then there is always an 'abort' for the action. Or maybe that's just how it seems to me.

I do sleepwalk (and have hit people whilst doing so). Apparently I talk but it makes no sense (some people would argue "no change theres, then"!). Sometimes I retain a vague memory of a weird altered state, most often I do not recall it at all.

This contrasts with the non-sleepwalking world, where I do know that I have had the choice to abort every emotionally charged action that has presented itself. In most cases I have done so, in many more, I should have.

[andrewducker]

This contrasts with the non-sleepwalking world, where I do know that I have had the choice to abort every emotionally charged action that has presented itself.

Hmm. you can certainly say it fely like you had the choice, but I'd be interested as to whether you actually have the choice at that time, or if you're merely training yourself to make the choice, if you see what I mean.

Either the conscious rides the subconscious like a horse, trying to keep it under control, or it acts as a trainer operating largely in the downtime and merely being kept up to date the rest of the time.

I'd be interested to see how much of each it is.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

but I'd be interested as to whether you actually have the choice at that time, or if you're merely training yourself to make the choice, if you see what I mean.


No I don't see. I can review set of very similar situations in which sometimes I chose to act and sometimes that I didn't. Articulating the reasons (internally) may well come after the physical action, that's not the same as saying that
the reasons were not thought of before the action (or why was there an action?)

Either the conscious rides the subconscious like a horse

Why the either/or? Why not both or something more subtle. Again I asay that I think that the division between 'conscious' and 'sub-conscious' is to a large degree an artificial one. There are many stages and inputs to a decision making process for an action, some very fast, some slower.

It's not all about whether your internal narrative has caught up.

Am I getting my point across at all? I may not be putting it too well.

[andrewducker]

I mean "conscious" as in you are conscious of it, or aware of it.

If something happens before you are aware of it, then it wasn't a conscious choice. It may have been a choice, but it wasn't one you were actually making consciously.

I think the number of decisions that go through this conscious stage is actually very few.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

'being conscious of it or aware of it' covers nearly everything that ever happens. I am aware of everything that happens to me except when I'm asleep (or the couple of times that I have been under general anaesthetic).

I suspect that you may well define a conscious action as one that is post your 'internal voice' having some kind of debate or at least 'talking'. I don't.

Many years ago (I think I was about 10 or 11) I noticed that waiting for 'the voice' catch up with what I was already aware of was too damn slow. I can't explain it. It seemed/felt like 'the voice' was just an echo and if I could catch the actual thoughts I could think faster, so that's what I tried/try to do.

I define me as all of me. I'm not sure how I would define conscious - there are some things that are pure reflex (stuff like knee jerks, blinking, pulling hand out of fire, keeping your heart rate/temperature/digestive system going) and then there's the rest of it. But all of it goes on in my brain and body.

I'm not sure that 'conscious' is even a useful concept - no-one seems to be able to define it (well enough for my liking).

[andrewducker]

I am aware of everything that happens to me except when I'm asleep
Are you conscious, right now, of the socks on your feet? You are _now_, but were you when you started reading this?

There's only so much that you can actually pay attention to at once - recent tests showed that despite what people thought of their abilities talking on a mobile phone basically removed their peripheral vision - the processing power wasn't available to do both at the same time.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

I did say 'happens'. The socks on my feet (though, funnily enough I am not actually wearing any) don't 'happen' once they are on, unless they suddenly remove themselves (to find a better life?) or go on fire or something. Which I would be very much aware of.

Interesting on the phone experiment though - was there variation? Some people (e.g. Sean) cannot talk and do anything much at the same time, even what I'd think is really simple stuff. He also seems to switch off language comprehension (which is very annoying).

I can blather away/listen whilst doing almost anything that isn't deep thinking or complicated or fast physical actions. I'm not trying to say I'd be all that different from the experimental people, just that logically, there must have been some sort of variation in ability.

Interestingly, I will not answer my phone whilst driving, but Sean will - scary as one of the things he switches 'comms' off for is most driving except in a straight line.

[andrewducker]

I'm sure there was a fair amount of difference between the people. I for instance, found that when talking on the mobile I had walked end to end of Sainsburies three times and still had nothing more than a tin of beans in my trolley. Erin can do 3 things at once without too much of a problem.

I find that focus is really my thing. I can lose myself completely in one task. Which is great for coding, but not so great for paying attention to someone else at the same time.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I thought it was a pretty good film totally let down by the rubber monster at the end. They should have stopped when she was at the cool maned toothed, clawed but still human shaped stage as that looked good and scary and way more realistic.

I'm suprised that you didn't mention the awfulness of the rubber monster.

I completely agree, I enjoyed the film until the ending, in addition to the cheesy rubber monster, this was a film that was attempting to be more than a standard horror film and yet at the end the monster dies and the credits roll, with no thought about what happens afterwards. The last 10 minutes were a major letdown.

"The whole menstruation/puberty/transformation/lycanthropy metaphor " is so obvious, not to say almost cliched that I'm surpised it took you watching it with women to get into it. I mean it's not like you haven't hung around with a lot of women.

Even the werewolf angle isn't new, Alan Moore did used it an issue of Swamp Thing almost 20 years ago. I found the first parts extremely promising, but it became more predictable the longer it went on, I was hoping for more than a standard horror film with interesting trappings.