Skip to main content

Review of Ocean's 8

The movie is about taking the jewels of a very grande dame -- a Queen, of some grande past age -- and slicing them into little bits, and sending these bits across the globe. The thief designated to do this crime, is the only one shown suffering under an indomitable mother. Our brains don't quite miss this. Before this, the jewels are deposited around the neck of a woman, who herself represents a queen of a sort, someone so important she commands centre stage of America's most important gala and has a life imagined as picking and choosing from people willing to give up their lives if only to be chosen to offer service to her. She -- this queen-duplicate -- finds herself in a bathroom, bent-over barfing, with a wash of someone slipping behind her and putting hands around her neck, and the whole bathroom being identified, centrally, as about shit-steerage. Drawn and quartered, disembowled, guillotined, and left in the end in shit... this is a lot of displaced mother-hate to inflict on tokens/totems that represent her. The thieves get rich, and the person -- or, to use the movie parlance, the mule -- that normally is put forward in films to absorb any sense that the thieves -- our avatars -- shouldn't feel overwhelmed with guilt, is put forward to plant it on: a strikingly good-looking and successful, rapscallion, man, whose deceptions in this case put a woman behind bars for years while he tasted only lofty living. The amount of time she had to serve -- almost six years -- is measured out so that it seems to justify what he will be afflicted with: total responsibility for the crime, which is, as described, the worst one imaginable... not theft, but mother-murder. But this device for displacing our own guilt is beginning to become... conscious; our superegos will no longer cooperate in our necessary but sick game, and the guilt rebounds very threatening to begin to sit with us.
So what the film does is have the queen herself suddenly agree to be complicit in the crime, with the excuse that it's good to have girlfriends for a change. The mother is imagined as perhaps liking us, even if she knew of our crimes against her, because we would be agreeable to her if she suddenly sat next to us and could receive some honest chat.
Old women at one point enter the film to deposit the bits of the venerable mother across the globe. I think that the young would be seen as insufficiently empowered to counter the power in the bits. This would seem the opposite of Frodo, but note that Frodo was old from the start... no Pippen or Merry, he.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...