Kate and Leopold: Women and History

went to a lexture + follow-up seminar on ^courtly love^ [oi stop fkn laffin !] in the early 90s that was weird, lecturer reckoned in time ov AIDS we would go back to retro ritualistic courtship and pc guerillaz tearin' him up [i said bollux many times to both sides]

as a northern barbarian i long for gallantry an' shit - but it'd end up like that TOTALLY CRAP party on 'being mick' with all the wifies dressed up in wigs and big frox

I had no desire to see the damn thing. Assuming Nitsuh's take is accurate -- and I'm not surprised if it is -- I have even less now.

Now Lord of the Rings, that's a different matter. Nobody votes, see. Well, except the hobbits. ;-)

This film will probably be evil because: it promises to feed on women's nostalgia for an era of clearly defined gender roles, primarily by completely revising history and creating a 19th-century Duke who's not, say, kicking homeless people out of his path or perceiving Ryan as a whorish abomination or finding it ridiculous that she works and votes.

Actually surely those hidebound traits are the source of ALL THE COMIC GAGS in the film? At least that's the impression I get from the trailer.

It'd make for a lot more interesting a film if Jackman started kicking homeless peope and attacking every non-Christian he spotted. Alas when a movie has Meg Ryan or Sandra Bullock or Helen Hunt in it, you know its gonna be sentimental drivel. Oh, maybe Jackman will have Tuberculosis or Cholera. That'd be romantic.

Most modern romantic comedies have really crappy and destructive messages, so I can't say I'm exactly surprised.

Anyone going into a Meg Ryan movie expecting something intelligent is either extemely naive or extremely deranged.

well i will go because hugh jackman makes me wet

Actually surely those hidebound traits are the source of ALL THE COMIC GAGS in the film? At least that's the impression I get from the trailer.

Yes but the trailer left me with the impression that the audience's amusement is to derive from Huge Ackman's charmingly "English" befuddlement, and not from his, say, irrepressible patriarchal rage. This way, we can witness "character development" as he moves from the regent of 19th c mores to the winning gallant who it is supposed is to serve as some sort of rebuke to us graceless sods of today. To have Duke Hugh slapping down his inferiors (viz everybody) would put him in too deep a hole to escape.

I will go because of what Nitsuh said... "it promises to feed on women's nostalgia for an era of clearly defined gender roles".

For a whole summer all I read was trashy romance novels set in Olde England. They are fantastic. They all had the same basic plot...
Rich, cold, hard, handsome, noble man takes/keeps beautiful, passionate, fiery, loyal woman prisoner. He wins her over through violence or persistance. The End.

Fuck I love 'em.

I think feeding on women's rape fantasies would be far more profitable than feeding on their nostalgia for era of clearly defined gender roles - or is it that the era of clearly defined gender roles implies rape???

are there kungfu injunz ?

'Irrepressible patriarchal rage' is the only kind that's bearable, because it doesn't carry worthiness and insecurity with it.