First posted on November 16, 2017
Do you ever see a sex scene and think ‘damn that must be directed by a woman’?Most shots focused on the face. Bodies blurred. More conveying a mood than showing tits...
I assume that any Hollywood “based on a true story” is mostly bollocks and you have to not take any of it truth because how do you know which part is the germ of truth. The writer-director Angela Robinson said she wanted to “have [her] own interpretation of the story.”
I’d heard that the family had disavowed the film but I had nothing to do yesterday morning - I will only get out of bed if I have reason.
— Christie Marston (@ChristieMarston) October 14, 2017
[Tweet from Christie Marson stating “This film is not a true story. It is based on someone’s imagination, not in any way related to my family. We completely reject and claims made in the film and in no way support this work of fiction. (and, btw, the true story is much more interesting..)]
I’m always surprised when films like this get made. It must have been because of the Wonder Woman movie that the posters so quietly immitate. I looked at some reviews after I watched it. These were the first two I found.
The sex in this was… nice. Not like in blade runner 2049 where Ryan Gosling showed no skin (It was distracting. I was waiting to see some arms. Then there were the unhatched replicants with hard nipples. Not hard dongs. And there were naked female bodies everywhere). There was plenty of Luke Evans on show (a man way hotter and less grey than his historical counterpart). I liked all the costumes, too. The explorations looked fun - Sex? Fun? Playful? Not in movies! - for the participants. I was proud of the BBFC for giving it a 15 rating rather than the 18 anything with lesbians usually gets.
As for the plot: I enjoyed a gentle story. A period piece in yellows and browns. The most colourful scenes were the colourful ones. Sexism occasionally mentioned. A scene talking about the survival tactics of women in public spaces. ‘She doesn’t look him in the eye for too long or he’ll think she likes him and when she inevitably turns him down; he’ll call her a slut.'
Thing is the smutty stuff is the most interesting part of it. While the Child Study Association of America inquiry is used as a framing device, the comic is just getting criticized for having fetish content in a childrens’ publication. There isn’t an ending to that conflict. We don’t see any censorship. Just a speech then a death.
At least I can say the film kept my attention. I didn’t go on my phone and distract the three other people in the theater - I think it’s fine to use electronic devices in the back row of a cinema screen. It’s rude to disrupt and that’s not disrupting. I watched three shows yesterday. It was maybe better than Justice League but not as good as Follies.
National Theatre Live livestreams are the best damn things in the cinema most months. Sorry medium of film. All the good independent stuff goes to the independant cinema that cost a lot more.
My policy stems from goodreads. Three means I liked it. I personally liked it
I don’t think this film will scandalize anyone as it was a known thing in comics fandom. The idea that Marston was inspired by pornography isn’t too hard to imagine. Look at this stuff:
He’s not the only one. Artist George Pérez is open about his other Robin artwork. John Byrne has a sizable back catalog of brainwash rape. We can’t know if Superman artist/creator Joe Shuster was drawing these for financial need or for fetish needs but look at this:
Hard times for those in the popular and poorly paid industry of comics.