(no subject)
Jun. 16th, 2017 10:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. I found myself agreeing in part with this assessment of The Josh Whedon Wonder Woman Script by the Mary Sue.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
Except, I'm starting to think during various discussions with people about various topics...that we don't necessarily define words or concepts in the same way, and people have different perspectives based on background, etc.
For example? Years ago I had a lengthy discourse on the nature of the human soul on my journal, or rather it was a lengthy discourse on what the term soul actually meant. Because no one agreed or defined the story the same way.
Here, I think...it's possible not to see Whedon's script as either sexist or misogynistic and see that he may well be commenting on it and our societal view of it. Which he's been doing in various ways in his work for quite some time -- commenting on it. Whedon's work tends to have a meta-narrative element, which many people don't realize, and often a satirical element, that many take literally. He is familiar with the comics and history, also how our world handles powerful women -- so he wrote his script through the point of view of a modern everyday male encountering a woman who is more powerful in many ways...and how does he deal with that? A question Whedon asks himself.
While the writers of the movie, made it more about the woman and less how she's viewed by society.
2. There's a fascinating podcast on SmartBitches about branding and why we read what we read, what attracts us to a novel. It's promoting a story anthology that doesn't reveal who wrote which story until September. And each author writes something in a genre or on a topic they've never written before or are uncomfortable with in some way.
What's interesting is it is a challenge to their readers. Because with genre readers, people tend to read one author whose style they like, or one genre. They don't tend to jump or take risks. So by requesting the author's take risks, their reader's do as well -- both jump outside the comfort zone.
Also the writers mention how unrecognizable some of their fellow writers works are -- style wise, they've changed their style.
Some writers can do this, some can't. Like some actor's can do it, some can't. For example? Cary Grant was always playing well Cary Grant. But Dustin Hoffman is often unrecognizable. You always tend to know it is Elizabeth Taylor, but Meryl Streep disappears in her roles.
They mention a "No Name" series that Louisa May Alcott wrote for, and in 1911, there was a concert series that works were presented anonymously.
I think it is harder to be anonymous on the internet. Though in a way by adopting an pseudonym, we are doing that here, aren't we? I feel freer here under my internet name, than under my real one on Twitter or Facebook or Good Reads. Here...I can say and write things with less...worry, somehow.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-19 11:43 pm (UTC)Funny you brought up Topher (though I think you meant actor Fran Krantz) as it had always struck me that Topher was an Andrew-type character. But then Joss had used Kranz in Cabin earlier (the movie was stuck in distribution limbo for a long time but had been filmed soon after Serenity) and perhaps realized the same thing you said, since Krantz got the main role and Lenk just a small part ;)
no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 12:28 pm (UTC)Yes, "Fran Krantz", I'd forgotten his name. I'd agree Topher felt like an Andrew type character, but the actor was so good that he was able to provide a certain level of nuance to the role, that Lenk just didn't. Lenk came across as if he was acting. I could feel him acting. His performance, much like Eliza Dusku's often felt too mannered somehow. I still wish they'd made Dichen, the other lead actress on Dollhouse the lead. She was very good.
While Krantz was the character. And I think, you are correct, Whedon began to agree.
Of course, Brendon's idea that he was campaigning for with Joss for S7 was a romance with Buffy which I think a lot of people would have preferred not to have
Apparently SMG and NB were both campaigning for it. And Whedon shot them down right out of the box. He stated, no, that won't work, it goes against the characters and story thread. (It did. Made no sense for those two characters to get together, they had a brother/sister vibe at that point.) Whedon suggested Robin Wood as a romance, but SMG didn't want it. They tried it, but the actors had bad, really bad to zero chemistry. Wood had chemistry with Giles, Spike, and Faith but no one else. So, they went a route that played on the chemistry he had with the other three characters. Wise move.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 02:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 04:53 pm (UTC)That was always a problem in Dollhouse for me, that the weakest actress was the lead
Mine as well. You know there's a problem when everyone in the cast is stronger than the lead. She should have just produced it and taken a supporting role. She worked well in Buffy, because it was a supporting role and didn't demand as much. But in Who Are You, which was more demanding -- Gellar unfortunately blew her out of the water and it showed. I don't know why Whedon didn't see her limitations in Who Are You. (shrugs) Mileage varies, I guess.
Amy Acker would have been a better choice.
I would have liked to see him more with Giles and Faith but of course ASH had limited time on set, and Faith didn't appear until much later by which time the plot was ramping up.
Shame they couldn't have brought Faith in sooner, gotten rid of Andrew, and focused more on Giles, but actors schedules, etc, interfered.
I can sort of see why they wanted to do a spin-off with Wood, Faith and Spike. Although...I think Dusku would have been the weak link. (Apparently Dusku was also struggling with substance abuse issues at the time -- she recently came out about it.)
no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 05:06 pm (UTC)Yes, the network was interested in a Faith and Spike spinoff hence the scene of the two in the basement that was supposed to be a sort of test scene for how they'd work together. But Dushku was offered money and a contract at FOX and then the WB wanted Marsters to come to Angel as part of the agreement for a S5.
no subject
Date: 2017-06-20 05:29 pm (UTC)But Dushku was offered money and a contract at FOX and then the WB wanted Marsters to come to Angel as part of the agreement for a S5.
Not sure why FOX did that...did backfire. Every thing she did with them, crashed and burned. (Tru Calling, which was Zach Galifankes (Baskets, and various comedies) first role, and Dollhouse, and something else. Nothing she did after Buffy lasted more than one or two seasons and got horrible ratings.
But yeah, that was the reason she headlined Dollhouse. Both Whedon and Dusku had contracts with Fox. Also why she didn't do the spin-off.
She had a good following with the two Bring it On movies, plus a horror film, and the Faith fandom. But not enough to overcome her limitations.