I was really looking forward to seeing this film (see previous blog post: “Miss Representation”). I;m going to be really honest. I did not really like the director’s way of storytelling. The film was mostly interview-based, but it frequently had cuts to montage scenes of near or mild pornographic images. For a film so adamantly against such things, why did I see more of those images in one film than I have accidentally run across on the internet in the last 5 years? I know, they may have been going for the ‘shock factor’, but after the opening scene, I felt there was no need for it. They were saying it was so bad, yet showing their viewers those same images! Not cool. Overall, nothing was confusing, however, I think it may have helped to have interviews with real women who had struggled with issues, rather than to just interview every famous woman.
I care about this subject, and the director did present many important points. However, I do not feel I was made to care more as the film went on--the amount I cared about the subject was a result of my own opinions, and not hers. I think that, in an attempt to make people care more, the director used the inappropriate images because if the audience was against such things, then they would surely have to realize that they were of her same mindset, too. I feel that she did not need to to so hard to get people to believe that what she said was important, it just is--fact. Alternatively, I think that some of the most effective scene, for me, were ones where they showed video featuring real women in the public eye (like Katie Couric), and the appropriate, yet not overly stiff, way they present themselves. It was a nice way to really see what they were saying we should strive to be.
I felt as if the director was trying to manipulate a bit. For example, they focused a LOT on the small number of women in power-position jobs. They kept saying who and it was that women didn’t have more of those rolls. I agree that any discriminate is wrong, however, I feel they COMPLETELY ignored a VERY important point. A lot of women have families on the side, and do not want to have such a huge job, OR they quite the workforce to be mothers. If both those kinds of women are removed from the mix, then yes, there are less even wanting power positions--but that messes with her statistics. She completely ignored that some women just want a small job, or just want to be a full-time mother. This is also interesting for her to leave out as she said she was making this film for her own young daughter.
I think the film brought up some very important and fair points, however, as the movie progressed, I did feel as if the director did not present every aspect of what she was talking about, and instead provided a some-what narrow view.
Some important points worth talking about were realized in this film, but I unfortunately must admit that I feel they missed out on talking about all women (with varying desires for jobs), and further rejecting the images (which they presented all too often) that they said they were so horrified at.
Mar 9, 2013
"Queen of Versailles" Review
So, a few days ago, I watched the documentary “Queen of Versailles”. As a super short summary, it’s about a wealthy time-share owning family where there is 30 years between the husband and wife, tackiness in taste abounds, and their lives go downhill as the market crashes.
I think that the director did a good job of telling a story that took place over several years. This was especially effective in his interviews with a couple of the children. As they aged, they became more aware of how imperfect their ‘perfect ‘lives were. Also, there was some nice exposition, allowing me to understand how life and had been, and was, for them at the start of the film. That was contrasted nicely with later interviews while they were struggling, and talking about how difficult this change was.
I did not find anything particularly confusing or ineffective as far as the storytelling went--although their lifestyle definitely made me wonder how anyone could become like that, at times.
Interestingly enough, at the start of the film, I found the wife unbearably tacky. However, after getting her backstory, one that had some less-than positive moments that were outside of her control, I had a change of mind. Although she still made me wonder how she could have fallen into being so tasteless, I felt like I understood her initial choices (such as marrying her husband) a lot more, and I felt sympathy for her. It helped that they showed pictures of her from when she was normal, before she had her life turned all around--it showed that she really was just a typical, maybe even pretty level-headed, person once upon a time.
While watching, I never felt manipulated. Although I think the filmmaker had no desire to make their subjects look bad, they seemed to just show things as they were (which at times did not make them look great). This made the film feel like a pretty unbiased look into the wealthiest’s lives. I think they tried to be fair when representing their subjects, and did not try to skew the events that happened.
I think that the director did a good job of telling a story that took place over several years. This was especially effective in his interviews with a couple of the children. As they aged, they became more aware of how imperfect their ‘perfect ‘lives were. Also, there was some nice exposition, allowing me to understand how life and had been, and was, for them at the start of the film. That was contrasted nicely with later interviews while they were struggling, and talking about how difficult this change was.
I did not find anything particularly confusing or ineffective as far as the storytelling went--although their lifestyle definitely made me wonder how anyone could become like that, at times.
Interestingly enough, at the start of the film, I found the wife unbearably tacky. However, after getting her backstory, one that had some less-than positive moments that were outside of her control, I had a change of mind. Although she still made me wonder how she could have fallen into being so tasteless, I felt like I understood her initial choices (such as marrying her husband) a lot more, and I felt sympathy for her. It helped that they showed pictures of her from when she was normal, before she had her life turned all around--it showed that she really was just a typical, maybe even pretty level-headed, person once upon a time.
While watching, I never felt manipulated. Although I think the filmmaker had no desire to make their subjects look bad, they seemed to just show things as they were (which at times did not make them look great). This made the film feel like a pretty unbiased look into the wealthiest’s lives. I think they tried to be fair when representing their subjects, and did not try to skew the events that happened.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)