Why did you change from him to her when referring to the male character who had cosmetic surgeries in an attempt to pass as a female? Homo sapiens, like other mammals, cannot change their sex. This is not trivial. As long as people go along with using inaccurate pronouns, some people will continue to believe that men (adult human males) can become or are women (adult human females), which is simply not true.
Your book Why I Am Not A Feminist correctly criticizes the mainstream feminist movement for obliviousness, irrelevance, and cowardice—and in your book you demand nothing less than the total dismantling of the system of oppression women live under.
That oppression now includes men who claim to be women, who are invading women's single-sex spaces, depriving girls and women of privacy, dignity and safety. Women who seek refuge in women's shelters, fleeing domestic violence by men, are now being forced to undress, attend to intimate physical care and sleep next to men claiming to be women. Women in prison are being locked into cells with men who claim to be women, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes against women and children. Some of these women have been raped and impregnated by these men. All women imprisoned with these men experience fear and many are sexually harassed by these men, even if not raped by them.
Why, then, do you submit to the demands of transgender ideologues by using the pronoun for a female to refer to a male character?
I loved Why I Am Not a Feminist. I can only conclude that Crispin’s complete lack of intellectual curiosity or rigor surrounding this subject stems from some sort of personal relationship or need for approval.
Her insistence that the human body is malleable and a transformation from male body to female body is somehow “easy” makes this an unserious analysis. Gascon is easily identifiable as male-bodied (“clockable,” as they call it) and it’s silly to posture as unquestionable that Gascon’s body is now female.
This was great!!! I’m too tired at the moment to say much more but wanted to at least say how much I loved reading this. So funny, so direct, and such vibrant writing. And right on about the film. Thanks!!!
"I was kind of hoping this would be true for Emilia Pérez, but about ten minutes into the film I realized this was unlikely to work out, and what I would be left restating was everyone has said. Emilia Pérez! What the fuck?!
Let’s just get some stuff out of the way. "
Very sophisticated film writing here. Who needs Reddit?
"Nothing sticks past the time spent in the viewing, no snippet of melody erupts through your consciousness as you make your morning coffee or walk down the street the next day".
Dead wrong. Every day when I wake up I say "Man into woman, woman into man? Man into woman. Penis to vaginaaaaaaaaa" much to the chagrin of my partner
Yeah, "the music from Emilia Perez isn't memorable" is a meme/groupthink spread by people who haven't actually seen the movie rather than a genuine criticism imo. They're not like... good musical theater songs, but they're undeniably catchy! (Similarly, Selena Gomez is obviously not a native Spanish speaker, but... her character is very explicitly a stateside chicana, right? This isn't a Gus Fring situation lol.)
I think this review suffers from “pretending that opinions about art/film etc can have some kind of objective take.” I am a decidely middlebrow film viewer - very comfortable and engaged at our indy theater most of the time, appreciative of some lower brow efforts, completely finished with superhero movies, and many other opinions.
But my views are opinions. I would not pretend to proclaim that a film is objectively great or poor - I will only tell you my reaction to it. Perhaps designated film reviewers have earned that status, but I rarely find such takes persuasive.
I had low expectations for EP but truly enjoyed it. I found the music and production to be original and compelling; I thought the story was interesting, and the acting was strong. Zoe Saldaña was deserving of praise (and the award), and I agree with you about Selena Gomez, and I found Karla Sofia Gascon to be credible and solid.
It was pulpy and not the most sophisticated or original story, but I thought it worked. It’s interesting that those who didn’t like it seem to operate with a level of vitriol that does not seem to fit the facts. I think a credible reviewer can recognize the strengths of a film more fairly and rationally, and it’s a fascinating matter in itself why this film seems to get such a disproportionate amount of heat.
I haven't seen it but I see the condemnations everywhere. Sounds like yet another non-serious woke garbage fire. There does seem to be an irony according to Crispin. The notion that men are strong and violent and women are weak and peaceful: Doesn't this just play into the Woke/trans ideas these people usually reject? (Fourth-wave feminists, too) Men and women are supposed to be "exactly equal," right? But in this analysis, we're being told women are calm, rational and peaceful (a sexist female trope) and men are violent and evil.
I really appreciate how often Jessa critiques things by pointing to examples of other things that are trying to do something similar, but better. I'm glad I skipped Emilia Perez, but now I look forward to watching other Audiard films instead!!
I agree with Jessa. Why couldn't they think of a more interesting title than just the woman's name? Like the vast majority of movies coming out these days (movies that're hyped up as the best), this movie was not memorable. I think the film industry has just run out of new ideas and I think the standards are a lot lower these days -- the bar is much lower in film, literature, etc.
" She has written for many publications, some of which are still in existence."..........the story of times. We knew them well, but apparently not well enough.
Why did you change from him to her when referring to the male character who had cosmetic surgeries in an attempt to pass as a female? Homo sapiens, like other mammals, cannot change their sex. This is not trivial. As long as people go along with using inaccurate pronouns, some people will continue to believe that men (adult human males) can become or are women (adult human females), which is simply not true.
Your book Why I Am Not A Feminist correctly criticizes the mainstream feminist movement for obliviousness, irrelevance, and cowardice—and in your book you demand nothing less than the total dismantling of the system of oppression women live under.
That oppression now includes men who claim to be women, who are invading women's single-sex spaces, depriving girls and women of privacy, dignity and safety. Women who seek refuge in women's shelters, fleeing domestic violence by men, are now being forced to undress, attend to intimate physical care and sleep next to men claiming to be women. Women in prison are being locked into cells with men who claim to be women, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes against women and children. Some of these women have been raped and impregnated by these men. All women imprisoned with these men experience fear and many are sexually harassed by these men, even if not raped by them.
Why, then, do you submit to the demands of transgender ideologues by using the pronoun for a female to refer to a male character?
I loved Why I Am Not a Feminist. I can only conclude that Crispin’s complete lack of intellectual curiosity or rigor surrounding this subject stems from some sort of personal relationship or need for approval.
Her insistence that the human body is malleable and a transformation from male body to female body is somehow “easy” makes this an unserious analysis. Gascon is easily identifiable as male-bodied (“clockable,” as they call it) and it’s silly to posture as unquestionable that Gascon’s body is now female.
This was great!!! I’m too tired at the moment to say much more but wanted to at least say how much I loved reading this. So funny, so direct, and such vibrant writing. And right on about the film. Thanks!!!
"I was kind of hoping this would be true for Emilia Pérez, but about ten minutes into the film I realized this was unlikely to work out, and what I would be left restating was everyone has said. Emilia Pérez! What the fuck?!
Let’s just get some stuff out of the way. "
Very sophisticated film writing here. Who needs Reddit?
"Nothing sticks past the time spent in the viewing, no snippet of melody erupts through your consciousness as you make your morning coffee or walk down the street the next day".
Dead wrong. Every day when I wake up I say "Man into woman, woman into man? Man into woman. Penis to vaginaaaaaaaaa" much to the chagrin of my partner
Yeah, "the music from Emilia Perez isn't memorable" is a meme/groupthink spread by people who haven't actually seen the movie rather than a genuine criticism imo. They're not like... good musical theater songs, but they're undeniably catchy! (Similarly, Selena Gomez is obviously not a native Spanish speaker, but... her character is very explicitly a stateside chicana, right? This isn't a Gus Fring situation lol.)
I think this review suffers from “pretending that opinions about art/film etc can have some kind of objective take.” I am a decidely middlebrow film viewer - very comfortable and engaged at our indy theater most of the time, appreciative of some lower brow efforts, completely finished with superhero movies, and many other opinions.
But my views are opinions. I would not pretend to proclaim that a film is objectively great or poor - I will only tell you my reaction to it. Perhaps designated film reviewers have earned that status, but I rarely find such takes persuasive.
I had low expectations for EP but truly enjoyed it. I found the music and production to be original and compelling; I thought the story was interesting, and the acting was strong. Zoe Saldaña was deserving of praise (and the award), and I agree with you about Selena Gomez, and I found Karla Sofia Gascon to be credible and solid.
It was pulpy and not the most sophisticated or original story, but I thought it worked. It’s interesting that those who didn’t like it seem to operate with a level of vitriol that does not seem to fit the facts. I think a credible reviewer can recognize the strengths of a film more fairly and rationally, and it’s a fascinating matter in itself why this film seems to get such a disproportionate amount of heat.
I haven't seen it but I see the condemnations everywhere. Sounds like yet another non-serious woke garbage fire. There does seem to be an irony according to Crispin. The notion that men are strong and violent and women are weak and peaceful: Doesn't this just play into the Woke/trans ideas these people usually reject? (Fourth-wave feminists, too) Men and women are supposed to be "exactly equal," right? But in this analysis, we're being told women are calm, rational and peaceful (a sexist female trope) and men are violent and evil.
I really appreciate how often Jessa critiques things by pointing to examples of other things that are trying to do something similar, but better. I'm glad I skipped Emilia Perez, but now I look forward to watching other Audiard films instead!!
I agree with Jessa. Why couldn't they think of a more interesting title than just the woman's name? Like the vast majority of movies coming out these days (movies that're hyped up as the best), this movie was not memorable. I think the film industry has just run out of new ideas and I think the standards are a lot lower these days -- the bar is much lower in film, literature, etc.
One of the best movies of the year. My take!
" She has written for many publications, some of which are still in existence."..........the story of times. We knew them well, but apparently not well enough.