I’d first like to point out that I
really liked all three writers and their points when talking about the film.
While I was very impressed with all 3 and I loved the laid back vibe Sophie
Gilbert presented, I have to disagree with her. I do feel that music, art, and
movies all coincide. Even accidents can create strain in many things, so
accidents can also project positive messages.
She states that Magic Mike is nothing deep or intellectual, “It’s a movie that celebrates the fact that
it doesn’t want to make you think—there’s nothing to pick apart”, but many
issues in the world are brought up in the movies, which coincidentally allows
it to be analyzed. Even if it is just a bunch of guys, making a movie about
guys, who dance around guys, for the pleasure of girls. Actually that sentence
contradicts the image of males in reality already. Also there wasn’t much more
than her opinion in her writing. It felt like it flopped as she commented on
the movies viability to be bigger than itself.
I can say that I did really enjoyed Spencer Kornhaber’s opinion on the
movie and its speculation on male and female stereotypes and gender as a whole.
Kornhaber says,” One thing that’s not traditional about the guys is their utter
lack of gay panic”, which made me realize that these guys were actually
comfortable in their own skin and didn’t put a negative stereotypical face on
the very large body called the LGBTQIA community. He then goes on and uses the
example about the vouging scene in the movie. Even though I have never seen the
movie, I looked this scene up. I got from it what he said, a very close group
of friends just hanging out at a drag show, not making a fuss, not going for
something “new”, or going to some out of the ordinary or “exotic” place. They
are just hanging and enjoying themselves in a community. I felt his comment on
the male image, out of all three critics, was most creditable and accurate.
It was kind of hard to understand what the writers were explaining just because I haven’t watched any of the Magic Mikes movies. I enjoyed Sophie Gilberts the most because even though I haven’t watched the movie she made the most sense to me. I originally thought the movie was about “… greased-up Adonises showing off their abs…” (Gilbert). I will have to disagree with your comment saying that Sophie Gilbert said there’s nothing deep or intellectual about the movie; I think she just meant they’re straightforward with everything that they’re presenting and they don’t beat around the bush. She explains how “…it’s pretty refreshing to have a movie that’s so seemingly free of nuance.” By watching this movie, we clearly know what the male’s intentions are, how they feel about themselves, and more. We don’t have to question “why they’re doing this?” or “who they’re doing it for?”. The only thing that the viewer has to really question about the movie was the two girls kissing. I agree with Megan Garber when she says the scene was “…mostly for the service of the straight guys in the audience who might be dragged to this movie by their wives/girlfriends”. Other than that the movie is pretty straight forward with what they’re trying to portray, which is why we don’t have to think about it.
ReplyDeleteLike most of the blogs and comments I’ve read, I haven’t seen magic mike xxl either. It took me a while to connect the dots in the first two arguments, so naturally I agree with the one that I understood most - Sophie Gilberts. I have a laid back opinion on any sexuality debate just because i’m not interested in it, so I felt like i could relate to Sophie. I’m not sure what you mean by,” Even accidents can create strain in many things, so accidents can also project positive messages”. I don’t really know how that directly relates to sophies argument(although I may have missed it). I do disagree with your comment saying that Sophie said magic mike is nothing deep or intellectual. I think she means there’s no questions wondering through your head because since “they are bros” they don’t play the mind games girls do. Everything was straight forward. “There’s nothing to pick apart in the car ride on the way home”. I also disagree with your statement about the movie plot allowing it to be analyzed. Sophies main point that i agreed with is that it was just a movie with hot guys dancing. It wasn't the notebook that left you wondering “why did that happen to them?” It was simply a movie made for entertainment, not to be analyzed.
ReplyDeleteIt was hard for me to wrap my head around this reading since I never seen any of the Magic Mike movies and I’m sure I’m not the only one. I also don’t plan on watching any of these movies. I originally thought the movie was just about guys dancing half naked but the story actually appears to be pretty blunt. There’s not exactly anything to hide or a secret waiting to unfold like movies. I don’t find anything political about this movie I think it’s purely for entertainment. It’s a different type of film and I think it would draw a lot of attention from the right audience.
ReplyDeleteI'll begin by stating that I haven't seen this movie either. I have to disagree with Spencer's interpretation based solely on the information provided in the article. I think Sophie has the right of it, clearly understanding that the film was generally free of nuance. Sure, the characters are male strippers and women are empowered because they have money to throw around and the men only want monogamy and the strippers display absolutely no "gay panic". None of this matters. Magic Mike exists so that women will pay money to enjoy it. As Sophie stated in her opinion, "In a cultural landscape where we're continually obliged to dissect things by going over them ad infinitum, it's pretty refreshing to see a movie so free of nuance." I don't think this movie does anything more sinister than play on existing gender roles to make a profit. It is simple and easy to understand entertainment--it is not really worthy dissection.
ReplyDeleteI personally would have to go behind Sophie’s standpoint on the movie, but also it is hard for me to understand being I haven’t seen MMXXL. Sophie brings most of the ideas and simplifies it really to where it is easier to comprehend. She doesn’t directly call out anything wrong with the movie, besides the two girls kissing and she says how she enjoyed every second of it. I believe movies are movies and if they don’t directly say anything about a topic then why should people interpret or bring up non concerning topics. Yes it is a movie about male strippers and if they were girls instead of guys the whole women community would be saying that women can’t be shown like that, but since they are guys it is ok to look at them as sexual objects. There really shouldn’t be any women disagreeing with the topic of the movie because as Sophie stated, it gives women what they want, the movie states countless time that they are there to please the girls.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen any of the Magic Mike movies so it was hard to follow what the writers were saying. My favorite writer was Sophie Gilberts because I understood her argument the most. I was really lost with what the other writers were saying because I did not watch any of the movies. I feel like the main purpose for the movie is just plain entertainment. Just a bunch of “hot bros” stripping. I don’t really see the purpose of analyzing it because I feel like the movie’s main purpose is a female crowd enjoying hot guys stripping. I agree when Sophie says “It’s a movie that celebrates the fact that it doesn’t want to make you think—there’s nothing to pick apart in the car ride on the way home…” (Gilbert). The movie was made for the entertainment of girls; it doesn’t make you question “why is this happening?” Like Gilbert says, it’s pretty refreshing to have a movie that’s so seemingly free of nuance. Why would we need to waste our time going so in depth with something that is just there for entertainment purposes.
ReplyDelete