SpoutBlog on spout.com

Under discussion:

Vicky Cristina Barcelona  (2008)

Not to make a career out of Woody Allen apologia, but I thought it was interesting to see critics slam Vicky Cristina Barcelona for what they perceive as Woody Allen’s misogyny when, for the first time as far as I can tell, he’s cast a woman in the typical Woody Allen role, which you’d think would be a step-up from the typical Woody Allen woman-as-love-interest paradigm.

Not that there was anything wrong with that. A couple of years ago, I wrote a thing about how writing realistic female roles has never been on Woody Allen’s agenda–all of the women in Woody Allen films are essentially distorted by the way men (usually Allen themselves) see them. I haven’t seen *every* Woody Allen film, but I’ve seen a lot of them, and I’m fairly familiar with the ones I haven’t seen. And while Allen has made a habit, in recent years, of casting a male actor in an archtypical “Woody Allen role” (Will Farrell in Melinda and Melinda, for instance), I don’t *think* he’s ever previously asked an actress to take on the role of the square, insecure neurotic who babbles their way into a seduction in the same way Hall does in Vicky Cristina.

As I noted in my review, Allen mocks Rebecca Hall’s character for allowing a single night of passion to upend her logical worldview, but he does so with a kind of “been there” sympathy and, ultimately, an empathy for her disappointments. At the same time, even if Allen can put a female actress in his place and essentially side with her the typical Woody Allen character is pretty self-loathing and, though endearing, often ultimately ulikeable.

So now this is a conundrum: is it more misogynistic for Woody Allen to depict women as untouchable projection screens for his own fantasies and impressions, or for him to (finally) invite women into his realm of self-hating, extremely flawed protagonists? Help, I’m confused!

Under discussion:

The Wild One  (1954)

Last night, like everyone else, I stayed up late to watch the All-Around Finals in Olympic Women’s Gymnastics. The thrill of cheering for our good, wholesome, corn syrup-fed girls to take their massive muscled thighs and (metaphorically, of course) break the necks of foreign competitors who are apparently ten years under the minimum age can’t be denied. But where even my beloved Bela Karolyi said from the start that Shawn Johnson was probably the American girl to beat, I had my money on Nastia Liukin.

There’s just something about Nastia. She’s like part ballerina, and part assassin. From the moment I saw her, I had visions of her dressed up like Marlon Brando in The Wild One. Then, as last night’s competition went on, I kind of revised the fantasy: I imagined all of the competing gymnasts in a reform school exploitation flick, with Shawn as the good girl who doesn’t really belong there, and Nastia as the leader of the pack who teaches her it’s better to be bad.

(It should maybe be here noted that last night, for purely non-recreational reasons, I was under the influence of vicodin).

Anyway, after Nastia won the gold and my sympathy for the bad ass proved prescient, I checked it out, and it turns out Nastia does have an IMDb profile and a bit of acting experience! Well, sort of: she played herself in that cheesy tween-targeted gymnastics flick, Stick It! Apparently, I’m not the only one obsessed with seeing Nastia on screen: last night, this clip from the movie had less than 4,000 views on YouTube; about eight hours later, that count has tripled. Somebody get this girl an agent! But a really, really terrible agent, who will only cast her in schlock, please.