comments 8

A Questionable Film (Some Blogging on Equality)

So, for the first time in a long time, I went to the cinema this evening (since The Hunger Games came out, in fact.  Which, as a film studier and part-time popcorn scooper, is a pretty long time).  I saw a fantastic horror-cum-*won’t say which genre as it’ll give away a pretty sweet twist*: The Cabin in the Woods; highly recommended for being in equal parts scary, funny and clever.  Maybe I’ll write a separate post about this, as I think there’s a lot to be said for the merit of this film.

However, this is not what I’ve opened up WordPress to type about.  I’ve actually felt the need to write a blogette about a trailer that I was unfortunate enough to sit through preceding Cabin in the Woods.

Now, I never saw ‘Piranha’ (the 2010 remake), but I remember the advert.  It seemed ridiculous, and then I forgot about it.

All screen-shots from the advert. Note the water-pistol on bum shot; a real gem.

However, the sequel to this (judging, again, purely on the trailer) seems absolutely, mind-bendingly ludicrous.  I watched it, chuckling at first, and then suddenly started to doubt whether I was in 2012.

I think I may have de-evolved watching this trailer. 

Obviously, this is a film that is in no way credible, to film makers or appreciators anywhere.  Its only redeeming feature was an appearance of The Hoff, which doesn’t say a lot.  May I indulge as to tell you the official title of this film?  Piranha 3DD.  Never, have I ever, seen so many bouncing boobs in one advert.

TELL me you did not replace our old lifeguards with STRIPPERS!”  – Genuine line from the ad.

I’m aware that sexy girls are a great addition to a horror film that wants to make money (a partial reason I liked Cabin in the Woods, which openly mocked the promiscuity formula).  In fact, sexy girls are a great addition to ANY film that wants to make money.  But this really took the biscuit.  The objectification-meter hit the roof with every accumulating arse-shot.

More snap shots of the advert. Sorry that this post looks like an issue of Loaded. Hope the lass in the middle has sunscreen.

Here is the offending article.

So, hey!  Hey there!  I’m a feminist.  And to all you ‘I’m a SEMI feminist, don’t worry’ people, remember:  It’s about equality.  No more, no less.  Personally, I’d propose a different term, as men also face some gender inequalities, like being unknowingly tested for some of the best spy apps for iPhones by their significant others.  It’s not big, or off-putting to strangers, but the most primitive basic for a developed society like ours.  Men and women are different in many ways, which is great – but it’s about choice, and not being pressurised mould yourself to a social stereotype like a jigsaw puzzle piece.

I used to work in a shop where the men’s staff uniform were regular, cotton t-shirts that came in ‘small’, ‘medium’, ‘large’, and ‘extra-large’.  There may have even been an XXL (this is going back a few years now).

Women’s t-shirts were tight, elasticated, and came in ‘small’ and ‘medium’.  That wasn’t a matter of the stock we had in; those were the options to order from.  As someone who dislikes tight clothing, and had had enough of the awkward ‘Oops, caught you looking at my chest, let’s pretend that didn’t happen’ eye-dance, I chose a men’s.  I didn’t think about it much at the time, but I was young-ish and preoccupied with the annoyance of having to wear a uniform just when I’d started to feel grown-up, being employed and all.

It is by no means the worst issue that humans have faced.  At all.  But little things like that going unquestioned bug me.  So now I am cathartically blogging about it.  Power to the people.

Feminism doesn’t rule my life.  There are a lot of issues that I feel very personally connected to, which I may blog about in future (I think my next ‘issue’ blog may revolve around mental disability; something incredibly close to my heart.  Vague conjecturing, here).  But whilst you may not even have faced any gender inequality, it still exists – prominently.  Otherwise everyone would have stopped discussing it, already.  So I’d say it’s become something I think about a lot more now, especially as I’m about to enter the ‘real world’ and try for a job.  For which I hope to be fairly paid.


  1. Alex

    I find it objectionable that you had to join in with the media maelstrom and call David Hassellhoff “The Hoff” – firstly as if he actually merits such a bombastic nickname, and secondly as if we’re meant to know him well enough and be so matey that such a moniker is needed. Before BGT I have to confess I’d only had a vague idea that this David Hassellhoff person was an “actor” at all, although of course maybe his choice to appear in “Piranha 3DD” would suggest he’s not really that way inclined…

      • Alex

        Haha sorry that came across rather a lot stronger than I intended 🙂 and actually, reading it, it wasn’t directed at you but more at the usage of “The Hoff” in general…but you have to understand how distasteful I find the whole “The Hoff” nonsense!

      • Haha, no, appreciate any feedback! Yes, he is in a particular cultural bracket that is slowly withering…poor guy :p

  2. Jack Nicholls

    I will say that I dislike that these films cause outrage, yet the same is not said of other films. Twilight objectifies men, the film ‘The Lucky One’ was advertised on the side of a bus with the slogan ‘Zac Efron is hotter than ever’. Magazines like Loaded and FHM are despised, but go into Gemma Fottles’ house and the wall is covered floor to ceiling with objectified topless/naked men.

    I agree the issue is more complex than the simple comparisons I am making, but humans objectify one another. That is fact.

    • Clearly that IS fact, otherwise this film would not have been made! And I definitely agree about the male thing – as I said, men also face gender based difficulties; not to the same extent but certainly an increasing problem.

      However I did pick this film as an outstanding example of objectification, to the point of being laughable. I believe there has to be a balance, and that this one crossed an invisible (and somewhat subjective…) line. I barely saw any FACES in the advert, which I will choose as my yardstick for now.

      • Jack Nicholls

        I just don’t understand why objectification should matter. I objectify women, and I’m sure I’d enjoy the titillation of this film. I’m sure you enjoyed the titillation of Twilight. But we are both aware that it is not real life and real people. Are you saying the problem lies in those that aren’t clever enough to separate the two elements?

  3. Well, I think you have a very optimistic view of people. And actually…I wouldn’t say there IS objectification in Twilight. At no point are the characters treated purely as objects – without their emotions and ‘personality’ (aha…) there is basically no film. You could not say the same of ‘Pirahnna 3DD’, which I think treads the line of soft core pornography.
    I think it’s important to recognize the impact that cinematic representation can have…even if we do take the time to consider that it’s not ‘real life’. Representation in film DOES affect views that people hold. Raciness can be fun, but I guess I hoped for a little more respect.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s