We all make mistakes, but when you’re the AP, the mistakes tend to stick out a bit more. Check out this screencap of a “story” on director Polanski getting arrested in Switzerland for rape today. Instead of posting the story, someone accidentally posted the chat log between the reporters discussing how to cover the case.

Screencap of part of the article plus link below.

See what happens when you take a day off Frank?

LINK: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRnW_PP9RtYpGgoc5KZiwY84hjrQD9AVNJ303

I had no intention of revisiting my rant/review of Jennifer’s Body and its criticisms, mostly because I believe that if you can’t successfully convey your intent/arguments in one article then you shouldn’t bother with a follow-up.

This is not a follow-up.

In the days since my post went up, I’ve been linked to on a variety of sites prompting a secondary argument to arise: whether or not Jennifer’s Body is a feminist film. In my original post, I stated that it was a feminist film because it’s one of the few movies that features female protagonists whose entire existences are not dependent upon the presence of males in their lives. (Yet, despite this, the movie is respectful of its male characters, allowing them to be fully realized individuals in their own right, and does not resort to the pitfalls of misandry.)

The film also satisfies the Bechdel Test’s expectations for a movie, a sort of feminist litmus test, as first outlined in the comic strip series Dykes to Watch Out For. These are:

1. It has to have at least two women in it
2. Who talk to each other
3. About something besides a man.

At the time, my mentioning of Jennifer’s Body’s feminist nature was meant to explain why I believed certain male critics didn’t understand key parts — or perhaps, more specifically, the way certain scenes may resonate more with the female audience. However, a few people have taken my sentence about the film being feminist and placed it against arguments that the film is not feminist because Jennifer, as portrayed by sexpot Megan Fox, is not feminist.

That’s a problem.

Just as a movie can take a hard stance against racism while integrating a character who is an unabashed racist (in most cases to prove a point), so can a film be feminist despite one of the female leads perhaps not being feminist in the slightest.

An additional problem is that there is no one definition of feminism. As I learned in my first year at college, feminists can be anything from man-hating to man-embracing, and even differ on their view of sex. While some feminists find pornography demeaning to women, for example, others think that it’s a positive thing so long as the women in porn have agency. Some feminists may refer to a woman as “resorting to her sexuality in a shameful display of submission to the patriarchy” and others might say that a woman is “embracing her sexuality on her own terms.” Of course, I represent only two extremes across a wide spectrum of beliefs here, but it’s important to realize that no two feminists have the same definition of feminism.

Consider the following fact about Jennifer’s Body and how it can be bent for either argument: Jennifer eats boys to stay young and pretty.

Feminist A might say, “Jennifer has to rely on men for her continued well-being and becomes ugly when she doesn’t. How can a woman relying upon a man be construed as feminist?”

Feminist B might say, “Jennifer eats boys to remain the woman she wants to be. It’s about time a woman uses a man for her purposes. How can that not be feminist?”

The same arguments can, in fact, be made for a variety of plot points and details in Jennifer’s Body, but I think it’s important to realize that this is mostly splitting hairs as they are always going to be the subject of multiple interpretations. However, I don’t think that they should take away from the film as a feminist statement. Though I am of the camp that believes Jennifer isn’t exactly the pinnacle of feminism — her only sense of self-worth seems to come from her view of herself as a sexual object — her character is used within the context of a larger film that, in its execution, is feminist in nature.

And that’s the problem with arguing feminism in Jennifer’s Body.

Jennifer’s Body is dead at the box office — or so it seems after this opening weekend. And there are a couple of likely contributing factors: 1. that it opened against a fantastic children’s film, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2. that it’s battling against people’s cumulative hate/dislike of one of the stars, Megan Fox, and 3. that a lot of the reviewers just don’t understand the film.

And why don’t they understand the film? Because it’s one of the very few honest-to-goodness feminist films out there — and more so then being feminist, it’s one of the few films that views things from a female lens. Boys are there, and make up the majority of the victims in this body horror film, but they’re not a concern. For once we have a story with female main characters who aren’t obsessing about, fighting over, or bitching about boys every five minutes. Jennifer’s Body is about women and how they relate to each other, the horror moments are there for style and allegory, but at its heart the movie is about two girls whose own toxic friendship is eating them both alive.

Hold up. You’ve probably heard the term “toxic friendship” a dozen times now in reference to Jennifer’s Body and if you’re a guy you’re likely scratching your head in bemusement. What’s the big deal about a toxic friendship after all? If you don’t like someone, you’re not friends with them, right?

Oh, if only things were so easy in Girl World. When you’re a girl growing up and going through the awkward throes of puberty and high school, you find that your best friends from childhood can be the first to throw you under the bus if it will make them look better. It’s not always the case, but almost every woman you meet has a sad BFF tale to tell. And the problem is exasperated by the fact that you have years of history with this BFF and, up until boys and training bras entered the scene, you understood and sympathized which each other.

But there often reaches a point where one, or both girls, rely too much on the relationship and each other. We’re not talking dependency, we’re talking a full-blown psychological crutch where one girl counts on the other to let her know she’s not crazy for liking that guy who’s on the swim team, that she’s not really fat like the others girls say, and that her friend will love her no matter what she says, does, or wears.

This is the definition of a toxic friendship. It’s no longer about being friends, but about needing someone else to function and often hurting them in the process. In Jennifer’s Body, Jennifer (Megan Fox) and best friend Needy (Amanda Seyfriend) have reached that point, but when Needy seems to be moving beyond the friendship by having a boyfriend and her own social circle, Jennifer starts to crack. But it really doesn’t show until, thanks to a Satanic ritual gone wrong, Jennifer ends up possessed by a demon. It’s a new toy, and something that makes her feel better about herself and better than Needy yet again.

In recounting this tale, Jennifer’s Body is packed with humor, one-liners, great moments of cheesy horror, and some poignant moments between Needy and Jennifer that will resonate with the female audience more than males. And that’s the problem.

Actually, no, that’s not the problem. That’s what makes the movie so great. The problem is that many audience members refuse to try to understand Jennifer’s Body and are subsequently calling it a failure because of that. For decades women have lived in a male-dominated world of cinema and have had to take things at face value but, thankfully, have found their understanding of men the better for it. How many male-bonding movies and buddy-comedies haven’t we watched with silent nods of “Oh, so that’s how guys interact when we’re not around. Good to know and I’m happy for that peek into something I normally wouldn’t see.”

Unfortunately, with Jennifer’s Body I’m seeing (and hearing) many males write off the parts of the film they don’t understand and, as a consequence, the entire film. What they should be doing instead, is trying to understand it as a seldom given look at the inner workings of women and their relationships with each other. When people accuse the film of having a plothole because of Needy’s constant gut feelings regarding what Jennifer’s up to, for example, they’re ignoring years of women swearing up and down about intuition.

Whether you believe in anything mystical or spiritual or not, you can believe in women’s intuition; it’s grown out of knowing a person (in this case a sandbox-BFF) so long that you’re almost in her shoes. When Needy realizes seemingly out of nowhere that Jennifer is after her boyfriend, it’s not because she’s a seer, it’s because she’s spent over a dozen years learning that that is how her friend operates; she’s a vindictive, conniving bitch, that Jennifer.

Another problem is that people, such as A.O. Scott of The New York Times, think that Jennifer’s Body is a revenge movie against boys for being the presumed predatory sex. If you think that then you haven’t been paying attention to the film in the slightest. From early on in the movie we see Megan Fox as a high school girl who is confident in her sexuality and uses it as a tool, whether it’s seducing a police cadet to avoid getting into trouble or buying drinks from the bartender despite being underage.

Jennifer doesn’t hate men — she loves them because they make her feel better about herself and she enjoys using them both for sex and power. So when Jennifer becomes possessed by a demon with a taste for human flesh, she goes after the boys. Why? Because she already knows how to bewitch them, and she’s more than in the habit of using them.

If you need further proof that Jennifer’s Body is not about revenge against the male sex, then consider this: Jennifer never goes after the indie boy band responsible for her possession. In fact, she seems bemused by their part in her fate… and potentially even thankful. So please, no more accusing Jennifer’s Body of being a diatribe against the male sex and our chance for revenge. Boys are beside the point in Jennifer’s Body, the only goal Jennifer has is to stay young, pretty, and better than her friend Needy. Boys are just a convenient way of making all three of those things possible.

In fact, if you think that Jennifer’s Body, both in title and story, is about objectifying the female body, you really need to rewatch it and reconsider. It’s about Jennifer’s greatest tool, her body, and how she uses it to hurt her best friend.

As a final defense against the negative reviews of this film, I want to quickly bring up the accusations of Diablo-Cody-speak. Some people hated it in her first film Juno, and many more hate that new Cody words are showing up in Jennifer’s Body. To these complaints I have two responses:

1. That’s how teen girls speak. They like to invent words to express their individuality and create a group identity. Slang can differ vastly from school to school and clique to clique, and because Cody integrates that into her script doesn’t mean that she’s trying to be oh-so-cool and invent slang for you. Clueless, Heathers, and Mean Girls also do great jobs at showing this tendency amongst female high schoolers.

2. Is it wrong to invent words? Need I remind anyone how many words Shakespeare is responsible for contributing to the English language? Is Cody’s right to play with the English language somehow invalidated because she used to be a stripper? Come on now.

Like it, love it, or hate it, Jennifer’s Body is a well-made movie. I have no problem with people not taking to it because they don’t like horror in their comedy or comedy in their horror, or because they hate Fox’s always-pouty lips, but don’t hate Jennifer’s Body just because you don’t understand it or refuse to. It’s time we start accepting that girls are different and movies from a female-perspective may require that you watch it with a different mindset.

If you liked this rant/review of Jennifer’s Body, check out EruditeChick’s post over at All Things Fangirl. She has some great points that inspired me to write up my own thoughts about the movie.

I just finished writing up this news over at LatinoReview about the possibility of Fathom Studios taking legal action against James Cameron for perceived similarities between their respective films, Delgo and Avatar.

As you can see from my post, I find the idea laughable. The truth is, I can come up with some other films and properties that share more in common with Avatar than Delgo seems to at this point. Don’t believe me? You’re about to.

Final Fantasy X

This CGI-heavy videogame came out for the PS2 back in 2001, though early concept art preceded that for a year or so. And considering that production on Avatar didn’t officially begin until 2006, it’s worth noting that the bioluminescent forest scene that wowed audiences on Avatar Day, looks uncannily like the famous lake-kissing scene from this game. Behold, a screencap from the Avatar trailer:

And now the scene from Final Fantasy X. (You might want to turn down your speakers if folksy Japanese singing bothers you.)

As if that’s not enough there’s also this fellow:

Kimahri: a member of the Ronso tribe.

He’s big, blue, (arguably) Native-American-inspired, and catlike — though a heck of a lot more badass than the Na’vi look at this point. At any rate, he’s far more similar to the Na’vi than Delgo can hope to be.

Delgo: He's only badass if iguanas scare you.

Castle in the Sky

Laputa: If you can speak Spanish then this name is hilarious.

For our purposes, it’s a big, giant, floating rock. Castle in the Sky, a Studio Ghibli film, came out in Japan back in 1986 so obviously Cameron is a big fat copycat, right? After all, his film has these:

But in truth the rock-castle you see in the first pic is a depiction of Laputa, and its legend goes as far back as Gulliver’s Travels, which was published in the 1700s. So Cameron, Fathom Studios, and Studio Ghibli are all copycats by this logic then.

Every Fantasy Book/Movie/Game Ever Made

What helps to distinguish fantasy from other genres — and I’m sorry but Avatar looks far more like a fantasy film than a sci-fi movie, Mr. Cameron — are the various visual cues, races, and themes that pop up. Dragons, forests, fanged monsters, floating cities, and saving the world because it’s more important than you and your spirit calls to it — or it to you — is something you’re bound to see over and again.

In short, Avatar is not Delgo but it is Final Fantasy X.*

*I’m kidding. Sort of.

This is possibly the single, most horrifying thing, I’ve seen this week: The Contraception Opera. Not only does it tell the tale of a sperm and egg longing to be united only to be thwarted by contraceptive after contraceptive, the operatic tones have actually made me switch my allegiances and root for their eventual pairing.

And it happens. Boy, does it happen.

*Found via HeartlessDoll

**According to Planned Parenthood, “Coitus Interruptus,” as the opera terms it, is pretty effective if you can do it right. Seriously. But still, better safe than sorry, right?

Yesterday was Avatar Day, and at the last minute I found myself in attendance for the 6 pm showing at NYC’s AMC Loews in Lincoln Square. (The theater and I have a long history together that mostly goes back to me drooling over The Dark Knight in IMAX and feeling insanely dizzy thanks to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix in IMAX 3-D.)

Three things you should know about me before we get started: 1. I love IMAX, I love 3-D, and IMAX 3-D is always a treat for me when it’s well done, 2. While I was curious about the Avatar footage, I wasn’t planning to attend Avatar Day until the opportunity fell in my lap, and 3. I actually liked the Avatar trailer that was shown earlier this week though I cared little for the design of the Na’vi alien race.

Worthington and his Na'vi-like avatar counterpart.

Now that we have that out of the way, we can get started on what really matters: the footage itself. Amounting to about 16 minutes, the scenes came from various points throughout Avatar, though James Cameron — via IMAX and not in person — assured us they were all from the first half of the film and did not contain spoilers.

Unfortunately, this movie looks to be so paint-by-numbers that spoiling the audience is a given once they know the premise. As I wrote on Twitter last night, “Avatar: visually impressive, but I’m not sold on the script/story.” That’s because, Avatar, for all its shiny new paint and CGI, is a story you’ve seen before.

But first, let’s discuss the positives. Avatar is gorgeous and takes full advantage of everything IMAX 3-D has to offer. Though I did not initially like the Na’vi design, their close-ups — complete with slight twitches of the ear and lifelike eyes — quickly endeared me to them. Between their expressive eyes and ears, the Na’vi are clearly aimed at triggering the oh-my-goodness-I-love-puppies-and-kittens-and-everything-cute part of your brain. And it works, allowing you to quickly forget any doubts you may have had regarding their cartoonish look.

Their appearance does get in the way later on, though. It’s a bit disconcerting, and more than a little incongruous, to witness Sam Worthington’s voice coming out of an adorably blue Na’vi as it says, “Whatchu got?! Oh yeah who’s bad? That’s right. Yeah that’s what I’m talking ’bout bitch!”

Of course, this line arrives just as Worthington’s character, Jake, is scaring off a predator only to find out that a bigger, more threatening creature is behind him and that’s the real reason why his foe backed down. It’s a scene you’ve seen a thousand times before and the only cause you have for liking this version is that it’s a tad prettier and in IMAX 3-D.

In fact, the visuals seem to be the only reason to watch Avatar at the moment, since you’ve pretty much already seen this movie several times — only back then you called it Pocahontas, Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, or Dances with Wolves. That Cameron wanted to make his own take on the classic tale about the outsider gone native is not a problem. The film industry and practically all of entertainment is about taking the same couple of stories and themes and recycling them for new audiences, after all. The problem is that Cameron’s interpretation doesn’t appear to have anything new to offer audiences.

Though you may not be able to predict the lines word for word, you can certainly tell where certain scenes and characters may be headed, and the footage shown on Avatar Day only served to reinforce my fears about the hackneyed plot. We see foolhardy, human-born Jake being taken under the wing of the native Na’vi, participating in a tribal ritual and then — from what I can tell based upon the montage of scenes that followed — the Na’vi fighting against the humans, and Jake being forced to straddle the line between the two.

Again, these views are only based upon the 16 minutes shown on Avatar Day. I’m not disputing that Avatar will likely be a fun and entertaining watch, but from what I can tell there’s no reinvention of the wheel going on here plotwise. It looks to be a passable story that’s riding by on its visual effects.

I should also note that I’m not writing about this in order to dissuade people from seeing it. Kids will absolutely love it and, if you can tolerate or even like the story, you’ll certainly want to take it for a spin. Cameron’s team has accomplished much in the realm of graphics and motion capture, and Avatar will likely set the pace for a generation of films to come thanks to its technical accomplishments.

But unless Cameron pulls out some amazing stops in terms of plotting and characterization, this film won’t be very memorable aside from the visuals it has to offer. This is disappointing, because for the groundbreaking film it is graphically, it deserves to have a much better story and longer staying power. For all the years that were spent working on the look of Avatar, I wish that more time had been spent with the script.

I officially love this woman and her broken English.

Oh, Tatiata, you flirt!

Screencapped from her site: Intimfitness.com

I am not rich. But somewhere in a parallel universe there’s a version of me that is – that bitch — and she goes on wild spending sprees and doesn’t care about the practicality of her purchases.

In this universe, I (Proper Genevieve) grew up with a rickety, wooden four-poster bed that was in danger of falling apart thanks to my proclivity for hanging off the columns while I pretended I was a superhero adventurer of some sort. In that parallel universe, Other Genevieve (that rich bitch) has a bunk bed shaped like a castle — a castle.

Yes, it's highly feminine but it's still a *castle* of all things.

But this bed isn’t just available in Other Genevieve’s universe, it’s available in this universe where the price tag is $20,570. In case you can’t conceptualize how much that is, let me just point out that tuition for one term (that’s fourth month) at NYU was a little over $15,000 when I attended.

You’re looking at someone’s college education.

Don’t get me wrong, though. If you earn the money, you have every right to spend it how you wish even if it’s on an overpriced Woodland Princess Castle Bunk Bed — the mere sight of which makes me sob with broken childhood dreams.

So have your fun, Other Genevieve. Battle off foes from your ivy-covered towers. I’m just going to go sit on my rickety, steel-framed four-poster and hate you.

But hey, if you’re ever in the neighborhood can you spot me a twenty?

** Pic borrowed from PoshTots.com where you can go to check out other very expensive fantasy-themed beds. And yes, the above bed is available in a queen size, so it’s not just kids that are getting in on this sweet deal.

** The wooden bed did eventually give way, which is why I now have a steel one.

Britain and I have a strange relationship. While it has given me nice things like great literature, the English language in general, Harry Potter, David Tennant, and David Bowie, it is also partially responsible for a particularly bumpy part of my life. And yet, regardless of all that, I still love Britain — especially now that I’ve heard what the National Health Service of Britain is recommending.

A National Health Service leaflet is advising school pupils that they have a “right” to an enjoyable sex life and that regular intercourse can be good for their cardiovascular health…

Alongside the slogan “an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away”, it says: “Health promotion experts advocate five portions of fruit and veg a day and 30 minutes’ physical activity three times a week. What about sex or masturbation twice a week?”

Britain also recommends that sex be paired with real people -- not statues.

Why the hell didn’t I spend my teen years in the U.K.? Instead I had to deal with the stateside abstinence-only education plan, which — if you haven’t had the pleasure — basically teaches that if you so much as look at somebody in a sexual manner your genitals will shrivel up and fall off — but not before they erupt into a pus-filled abyss that will serve as your passkey into hell.

No, I’m not being dramatic.

And while I realize that this leaflet is directed at British schoolchildren/teens, I see no reason why we can’t all take this advice to heart. The article I found has a link to the original story, which I’m sure backs up the have-lots-of-sex-and-masturbation advice with some sound medical facts and data, but I really don’t care. I just found an article that tells me to have an orgasm a day. I need no further evidence.

Now, if you’ll excuse me…

** Image from Sex is Zero: Season 2

I don’t read books on how to snag men; the majority give poor advice, or cater to a materialistic demographic of women that I am proud not to be a part of. So when my mom linked me to an excerpt from “The Vixen Manual,” I was more than ready to start ripping it apart. But some of the advice that author Karrine Steffans doles out is pretty sound, especially these three points:

[1.] Giving others the ability to define how you view yourself means you’ve surrendered your power. By expecting others to give you what you need — dignity, pride, self-esteem, confidence — you become a hostage, subject to their whims and insecurities. You must learn to mine your own strengths, which you already possess in great abundance.

[2.] If you’re the type of woman who can’t bear the idea of leaving the house without being in the company of a gaggle of girlfriends, you’re not a singular individual. Men are attracted to a woman’s independence and strength.

[3.] There’s something uniquely beautiful about Blockbuster nights under a fluffy duvet with someone special, our feet touching, our bodies entwined as we steal each other’s warmth.

All right so the third item isn’t really a point, but it’s something I love — although, I don’t know about the Blockbuster reference; substitute that with Netflix or Torrent instead, and then you’re accurately representing the modern relationship.

At any rate, Steffans does what precious few female relationship writers do within this excerpt, advise women to be confidant individuals who don’t rely upon a relationship to define them. I respect that and I endorse that, which is why I told my mom that the woman had a few good points from what I could tell.

She responded with, “Yes, maybe. But the cover implies ho.”

Said Ho-Cover

All I can say then is: Don’t judge a book by it’s ho-cover.

Image borrowed from Amazon.