A film and a tv series
May. 31st, 2023 04:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakShe Said: This is one of those films which were a flop and you don't know why. It has a good cast, a good and female director (Maria Schrader), and it does everything right in tackling its difficult and recent subject (the reporting on Harvey Weinstein) - the title, which very intentionally is "She Said" and not "She Said/He Said" - is symbolic for that. There are no flashbacks to the rapes and sexual molestations; instead, we see our two (female) reporters talking to various of Weinstein's victims, mostly the behind the camera ones (assistants, and women from the production teams), for this isn't a movie relying on famous subjects, either. (I mean, we hear (on speakerphone, we don't see her) a conversation with Rose MacGowan in which she declines to be interviewed and says why, and Ashley Judd plays herself in a key scene, but the women getting the extensive screen time are the non-famous ones. Their stories are the ones told, and the movie relies on the actresses conveying how awful the experience was by the way they talk (or don't talk) about it years later in various intense character scenes. You never see Weinstein except near the end from behind, though you hear his voice a couple of times; like I said, the movie is absolutely focused on the women and their stories and doesn't want to make this Weinstein's story in any way.
As for the reporters, they're played by Carey Mulligan and Jodi Kantor and as engaging a pair of questing journalists as can be found in a "journalists uncover a horrible truth" type of story. They're both married with children, and we see just enough of their backgrounds to know that, but no more; as with Woodward & Bernstein in All the President's Men and the Boston Globe reporters in Spotlight, the film shows them in their capacity as reporters and relies on the story they're pursuing being dramatic enough without needing to show them in cliché "But am I there enough for my children?" type of scenarios. And while the film is focused on Weinstein's victims, it is made clear by various characters that the systematic coverup and enabling problem goes far beyond Harvey Weinstein the individual.
So given all this, why did the movie when released disappear so quickly? (And is rentable for the bare minimum of money on Amazon Prime currently?) I haven't found a truly satisfying explanation. Yes, we know how it will end from the get go, it's not a question of whether or not Weinstein did it, and it tackles a recent history subject, but so did All the President's Men when filmed in the 1970s. Yes, rape is a triggery subject, but that's more than true for Spotlight as well where the raped and molested people were children or teenagers at best when raped or molested, and Spotlight was a great commercial and critical success. And Harvey Weinstein is hardly a more difficult (mostly off screen) villain to sell than the Catholic Church.
Dahaad: I watched this on Amazon Prime as well; it's an Indian tv miniseries (so far; it's from this year, so I don't know whether they intend to do another season with a different story, or whether this is self contained, which would definitely work), a solid detective(s) vs murderer tale, where what makes it unique isn't the story as such but the way it's connected to its surroundings and how the characters show their society. It's mostly set in current day Rajahstan (with some later scenes in other Indian states, but not many). Our heroine is Anjali Baathi, whose father had changed his last name from Megwahal which apparantly is an immediate giveway of his lower caste status. Anjali is one of the few female police officers, and that she's a) a woman and b) lower caste is something that's very much present through the story. Her immediate superior is supportive, but she has a somewhat tense relationship with a colleague (who at first seems like he's going to be a villain, but he's not), and the superintendent in charge of them all is an ass. They come across a series of seeming suicides which turn out to have been murders. Now a Whodunit, this tv series is not; the audience already encounters the killer in the pilot. (He's Anand, a higher caste Professor whose m.o. is seducing poor women who because they're unmarried, past their mid twenties and under great pressure from their families fall for the first guy who shows interest fall for the first guy who shows interest, is kind and doesn't ask for a big dowry. The mystery isn't whether he did it - we see him chat them up and later persuade them into "eloping" with him - , but how he he manages to set their deaths up in a way that makes them look like suicide, and how our heroine will be able to prove this.) And as I said - all of the crime story is very much connected to social circumstances. The reason why Anand has been able to kill so many women without anyone noticing is because they're poor, many of their families saw them as a financial burden and not many reported their disappearances at all. (Especially since the women were all adults.) Where there were actually family members who looked for them and tried to get help from the police, the police didn't show much iinterest, either, because, again: poor.
While each episode opens with a disclaimer that the show doesn't mean to slander the police or a political party or a caste and has respect etc, and just wants to point out that discrimination and other social evils exist, it comes across as quite critical. While the murder victims are poor women, Anjali Baathi and her colleagues in the pilot have to deal with a very different case as well, a girl from a wealthy background who has run away with a Muslim boyfriend, which means there's immediately a politician (of an unnamed party but it's clearly the BJP) showing up using this for rubbish demagogery and riling up the crowd. (As I did read articles of how bogus stories about a "love jihad" are used against Indian Muslims some months ago, I immediately made the connection.) The brother of a disappeared girl (who is one of the few who looks) can't find any one listening to him until he joins the shouting crowd of the demagogic politician. The superintendent just wants some quick and flashy results (which first means fingering the Muslim and later pinning the rising number of dead bodies on "gangs"), not the truth. And as said, Anand's victims would not fall into his trap if they weren't constantly given the impression their only worth was in marrying and that having seemingly missed the chance to, they've let their families down. (Anjali, who has her mother nagging her non stop about marrying despite really not being interested - she has a friends with benefits arrangement going taking care of her sex life - can relate.)
Now, I doubt the series is meant as hardcore realism. (The superintendent may be an ass, but Anjali's immediate superior is great and values her, and while some of her colleagues make some comments the overall show has them respect her; moreover, there's no corrupt cop in sight, though it's an open question whether the superintendent is just vain and stupid or also in the pocket of the local wealthy.) But it's certainly a vivid glimpse at present day India, and pleasantly surprised me more than once by not going for the cliché which I thought would happen. (For example: Anand is married, and his wife - who works in a big hotel - has an affair. Good lord, thought I, they're going to blame the wife on her husband being a serial killer, they're going to slut shame her, aren't they? But no. The wife - who confesses the affair because she wants a divorce and an honest life - turns out to be a compassionate person and empathic mother. (She also doesn't die, which is the other thing I expected to happen.) Or: at one point various boys get their hand on a mobile phone which is a clue of the case and go on the internet with it. (We don't see what they look at, but the noises are unmistakable.) One of them is the son of Anjali's immediate superior, who when talking to the boy later strikes just the right balance - he says it's natural being curious about sex, but that this (i.e. porn on the internet) is not how to satisfy this curiosity, especially at his son's age, and that the most important thing to know about sex is that the person you're having it with should be someone you respect who enjoys the experience, and if his son has other questions, he can ask him.
And lastly: Anjali is played by an actress who while pretty doesn't look like a super model but like someone who regularly works out and has self defense classes, and she's in uniform during 90% of her screen time. The actresses playing Anand's various targets do look like they're closer to thirty than to 20 (and in one case, even 40). In an American tv show show where the murderrer is a very intelligent, careful man, I have the feeling they'd be found very nude and artfully arranged; this being an Indian series, they are found fully clothed, and the only time someone swims in a pool and emerges dripping wet, it's the guy Anhand's wife has the affair with. In conclusion, this is not a male-gazey show but one that sees its female characters as people.
As for the reporters, they're played by Carey Mulligan and Jodi Kantor and as engaging a pair of questing journalists as can be found in a "journalists uncover a horrible truth" type of story. They're both married with children, and we see just enough of their backgrounds to know that, but no more; as with Woodward & Bernstein in All the President's Men and the Boston Globe reporters in Spotlight, the film shows them in their capacity as reporters and relies on the story they're pursuing being dramatic enough without needing to show them in cliché "But am I there enough for my children?" type of scenarios. And while the film is focused on Weinstein's victims, it is made clear by various characters that the systematic coverup and enabling problem goes far beyond Harvey Weinstein the individual.
So given all this, why did the movie when released disappear so quickly? (And is rentable for the bare minimum of money on Amazon Prime currently?) I haven't found a truly satisfying explanation. Yes, we know how it will end from the get go, it's not a question of whether or not Weinstein did it, and it tackles a recent history subject, but so did All the President's Men when filmed in the 1970s. Yes, rape is a triggery subject, but that's more than true for Spotlight as well where the raped and molested people were children or teenagers at best when raped or molested, and Spotlight was a great commercial and critical success. And Harvey Weinstein is hardly a more difficult (mostly off screen) villain to sell than the Catholic Church.
Dahaad: I watched this on Amazon Prime as well; it's an Indian tv miniseries (so far; it's from this year, so I don't know whether they intend to do another season with a different story, or whether this is self contained, which would definitely work), a solid detective(s) vs murderer tale, where what makes it unique isn't the story as such but the way it's connected to its surroundings and how the characters show their society. It's mostly set in current day Rajahstan (with some later scenes in other Indian states, but not many). Our heroine is Anjali Baathi, whose father had changed his last name from Megwahal which apparantly is an immediate giveway of his lower caste status. Anjali is one of the few female police officers, and that she's a) a woman and b) lower caste is something that's very much present through the story. Her immediate superior is supportive, but she has a somewhat tense relationship with a colleague (who at first seems like he's going to be a villain, but he's not), and the superintendent in charge of them all is an ass. They come across a series of seeming suicides which turn out to have been murders. Now a Whodunit, this tv series is not; the audience already encounters the killer in the pilot. (He's Anand, a higher caste Professor whose m.o. is seducing poor women who because they're unmarried, past their mid twenties and under great pressure from their families fall for the first guy who shows interest fall for the first guy who shows interest, is kind and doesn't ask for a big dowry. The mystery isn't whether he did it - we see him chat them up and later persuade them into "eloping" with him - , but how he he manages to set their deaths up in a way that makes them look like suicide, and how our heroine will be able to prove this.) And as I said - all of the crime story is very much connected to social circumstances. The reason why Anand has been able to kill so many women without anyone noticing is because they're poor, many of their families saw them as a financial burden and not many reported their disappearances at all. (Especially since the women were all adults.) Where there were actually family members who looked for them and tried to get help from the police, the police didn't show much iinterest, either, because, again: poor.
While each episode opens with a disclaimer that the show doesn't mean to slander the police or a political party or a caste and has respect etc, and just wants to point out that discrimination and other social evils exist, it comes across as quite critical. While the murder victims are poor women, Anjali Baathi and her colleagues in the pilot have to deal with a very different case as well, a girl from a wealthy background who has run away with a Muslim boyfriend, which means there's immediately a politician (of an unnamed party but it's clearly the BJP) showing up using this for rubbish demagogery and riling up the crowd. (As I did read articles of how bogus stories about a "love jihad" are used against Indian Muslims some months ago, I immediately made the connection.) The brother of a disappeared girl (who is one of the few who looks) can't find any one listening to him until he joins the shouting crowd of the demagogic politician. The superintendent just wants some quick and flashy results (which first means fingering the Muslim and later pinning the rising number of dead bodies on "gangs"), not the truth. And as said, Anand's victims would not fall into his trap if they weren't constantly given the impression their only worth was in marrying and that having seemingly missed the chance to, they've let their families down. (Anjali, who has her mother nagging her non stop about marrying despite really not being interested - she has a friends with benefits arrangement going taking care of her sex life - can relate.)
Now, I doubt the series is meant as hardcore realism. (The superintendent may be an ass, but Anjali's immediate superior is great and values her, and while some of her colleagues make some comments the overall show has them respect her; moreover, there's no corrupt cop in sight, though it's an open question whether the superintendent is just vain and stupid or also in the pocket of the local wealthy.) But it's certainly a vivid glimpse at present day India, and pleasantly surprised me more than once by not going for the cliché which I thought would happen. (For example: Anand is married, and his wife - who works in a big hotel - has an affair. Good lord, thought I, they're going to blame the wife on her husband being a serial killer, they're going to slut shame her, aren't they? But no. The wife - who confesses the affair because she wants a divorce and an honest life - turns out to be a compassionate person and empathic mother. (She also doesn't die, which is the other thing I expected to happen.) Or: at one point various boys get their hand on a mobile phone which is a clue of the case and go on the internet with it. (We don't see what they look at, but the noises are unmistakable.) One of them is the son of Anjali's immediate superior, who when talking to the boy later strikes just the right balance - he says it's natural being curious about sex, but that this (i.e. porn on the internet) is not how to satisfy this curiosity, especially at his son's age, and that the most important thing to know about sex is that the person you're having it with should be someone you respect who enjoys the experience, and if his son has other questions, he can ask him.
And lastly: Anjali is played by an actress who while pretty doesn't look like a super model but like someone who regularly works out and has self defense classes, and she's in uniform during 90% of her screen time. The actresses playing Anand's various targets do look like they're closer to thirty than to 20 (and in one case, even 40). In an American tv show show where the murderrer is a very intelligent, careful man, I have the feeling they'd be found very nude and artfully arranged; this being an Indian series, they are found fully clothed, and the only time someone swims in a pool and emerges dripping wet, it's the guy Anhand's wife has the affair with. In conclusion, this is not a male-gazey show but one that sees its female characters as people.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 02:50 pm (UTC)I read the book, and thought the movie did a very fine job adapting it. I'm said it flopped.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 03:03 pm (UTC)Agreed about the very first scene.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 05:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 04:15 pm (UTC)One factor (though I'm sure not all) is that it had a terrible poster.
It's a really bland shot of two young women talking with one sitting on a desk in front of venetian blinds, and gives absolutely no information at all about what sort of film it is or what it's about. First time I saw it, I think I assumed it was most likely a quirky comedy-drama about the love lives of young people today.
It should have got the gritty black-and-white Spotlight treatment that says "this is a tough, serious story about investigative journalists blowing the lid off a huge scandal". Instead the poster is just extremely meh and uninformative-to-misleading.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 06:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 05:07 pm (UTC)"Why did it flop"....I got nothin' other than institutional sexism, i.e. it was based on a book by two women, the screenplay was written by a woman, it was directed by a woman and the focus was on two women talking to other women, and the focus was not on the main predator at all. (Like, Women Talking was also about women directly disclosing their abuse to each other, but Ben Whishaw played a major character. She Said doesn't really have that.)
Bombshells was less serious, and less fact-based, but it didn't do that well either. The Assistant was great, but also pretty tiny.
no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 07:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 07:19 am (UTC)I saw an actual angry review that Bombshell was too much #girlbosspower with the Regina Spektor song at the end (which I loved) and how it didn't matter because then Ailes went on to help Trump's campaign, and Fox was Trump's news arm during his presidency! Like, jeez, that's not what I got at all.
no subject
Date: 2023-05-31 10:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 07:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 07:24 am (UTC)I do think a punchier trailer would have helped some. The Assistant had an amazing one that got a lot of buzz.
no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 06:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-06-01 10:38 pm (UTC)I don't know how much this contributed, but I also remember that it had a horrible trailer. I saw the trailer in the theater and thought that the movie would be a facile "you get 'em girl!" type movie that portrayed the issue as something that was solved by these two reporters (iirc... I haven't rewatched the trailer, just remember I had a really negative impression of it!). I was actually very surprised by the good reviews and happy that my impression from the trailer was incorrect. (I, uh, also contributed to the not watching because I am out of spoons for reading/watching things about sexual assault...)