No Position On the Article, But...

[shipperx]

I have no position on the article (as I haven't read it) but TVGuides talk of it reminds me of a conversation I had with my younger nephew where I said that the movie "Knocked Up" was a pothead slacker's fantasy.  Nephew gave me sort of blank look and I said point blank, "THAT guy would never get THAT girl.  Never."

I hope that he didn't think I was making that statement based on looks.  I wasn't making the statement based on looks.

Since this was a few years ago now, I cannot remember what all I said but I hope that I explained that the reason I said this was because the female character was drawn as being career oriented and ambitious and the Rogen character was an aimless slacker (who needed a shower) who had no direction or purpose in life other than to sit on a sofa smoking pot and watching soft porn!  These two people would never function together.  It would be a miserable disaster.

Anyway, TVGuide's article:

Movie Critic Responds to Seth Rogen:

A Washington Post writer says she understands why her article about Santa Barbara killer Elliot Rodger offended and upset Seth Rogen and Judd Apatow.

Over the weekend, Ann Hornaday published a piece about the horrific YouTube manifesto Rodger uploaded prior to murdering six people. In the article, Hornaday spoke about Rodger's privileged lifestyle and Hollywood before calling out Rogen's latest film, Neighbors. "[Rodgers] unwittingly expressed the toxic double helix of insecurity and entitlement that comprises Hollywood's DNA," she wrote. "How many students watch outsized frat-boy fantasies like Neighbors and feel, as Rodger did, unjustly shut out of college life that should be full of 'sex and fun and pleasure'? How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, 'It's not fair'?"  {...}

On Tuesday, Hornday followed up with another article, explaining that she understood the criticism. "As un-fun as it is to be slammed by famous people, I could understand Apatow and Rogen's dismay," she wrote. "Why would a movie reviewer even weigh in on the Isla Vista tragedy in the first place? ... Movies aren't accurate reflections of real life, as I wrote in the essay. But there's no doubt they powerfully condition what we desire and feel we deserve from it. I was not using the grievous episode in Isla Vista to make myself more famous; nor was I casting blame on the movies for Rodger's actions. Rather, in my capacity as a movie critic, I was looking at the video as a lens through which to examine questions about sexism, insecurity and entitlement, how they've threaded their way through an entertainment culture historically dominated by men and how they've shaped our own expectations as individuals and a culture."

Comments

[ceciliaj.livejournal.com]

oh, interesting. you can't take pop culture out of the equation here, that's for sure.

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

It's always amazing how thin-skinned "un-PC" comedians are.

[infinitewhale.livejournal.com]

I was looking at the video as a lens through which to examine questions about sexism, insecurity and entitlement, how they've threaded their way through an entertainment culture historically dominated by men and how they've shaped our own expectations as individuals and a culture.

And she was absolutely spot-on about it. And I suspect the truth of it cut Apatow and Rogen a bit.

[shapinglight]

Sounds to me like she got it bang on the nail.

[nutmeg3.livejournal.com]

I think she's spot-on, and - as always - it's fun to watch the pouting of people who can dish it out but just can't take it.

Also, I've always said exactly what you did about that movie and its ilk. They're completely offensive to women and just as misogynist in their way as Rodger's rant.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I more often than not hate Apatow movies. They usually make me want to go take a shower afterward.

[rahirah]

I have read the article, and it's got a point. Apatow and Rogen can cry about it all the way to the bank.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

There was another article discussing the anti-misogyny hashtag that popped up on twitter with women posting incidents of harassment and there was some mention of comic cons and fandom and... yeah. I think we've all seen instances of that. And I cannot help but thinking the paternalistic lectures handed out to female fans about 'hot guys' is also a reflection of this. Note how the self-appointed paternalistic lecturer tends to think that the women are wrong to like the hot guy. The hot female character should obviously go for the pre-approved ordinary guy.

So...um... let's break this down just a little. It's apparently 'right' for the ordinary guy to win the mega hot girl. But it's wrong, wrong, wrong for the female character or the female fans to like the hot guy. Is there just a wee bit of double standard at play? Ordinary guy 'deserves' hot girl, but there's not recipricol 'girl deserves a hot guy' rule?

It's like all those comedies that pair the schlubby comic with a hot younger wife. Those are a dime a dozen. Phone me when they have Melissa McCarthy paired with Justin Timberlake (without critics or fans whining about it).

All that said, clearly the shooter had mental issues far beyond environment and culture.