100 girls

duke, thanks for the thoughtful response. My comments follow, and will probably be my last words on the matter, since I've already spent far more time on this movie than I ever planned to. Anyone interested in discussing the broader issues with me further can PM me.

"You're statement that the femenists portrayed here are not accurate reflections of real life is flawed, because no matter how good a group of people (like femenists) are, there's always the extreme ones, and the extremist feminist is the one portrayed in the women's study class. "

Fair enough. But my real point here was not so much to defend feminists in general, as to demonstrate that Davis has no idea what he's talking about. He provides the audience with no reasonable feminist characters at all (probably because he thinks, and wants us to think, that there are none). Instead, he creates a dichotomy: evil, crazed, extreme, man-hating feminists on one hand, and nice normal girls on the other. The first women's studies scene is pretty much superfluous, and the second is the one in which Davis drives home his main political point, which is a response to a blatant mispresentation on his part in the first place. So what, other than a display of false erudition, is Davis trying to accomplish here? He relies on his audience's general ignorance about feminists to create the impression of his own devastating wisdom. (And again, this point isn't specifically tied to the validity or invalidity feminism itself; the same is true, for instance, of Deepak Chopra invoking quantum mechanics to impress his readers, even though he clearly knows nothing about the subject himself).

"This is Davis' film, he created the character, whether its an accuracte representation of a group of people is mostly irrelevant because this film is fiction."

Since when is fiction irrelevant? Storytelling is the most ancient of human teaching techniques, and the ideas presented in stories do have both social and personal consequences. It is almost never a direct cause-and-effect relationship, but to dismiss potentially damaging ideas because they're "fiction" is both naive and irresponsible.

"Do you regularly slam movies for enforcing stereotypes? If so, you must not have alot of time for much else."

Believe it or not, many people's enjoyment of film and literature includes the critique phase. It's an excellent way of keeping the mind sharp, rather than just turning it off for few hours. It's also possible to enjoy a film and be critical of it at the same time. Although, truth be told, I've already spent far more time talking about 100 Girls than I initially intended.

"Yes, maybe altogether Matt did overstep the boundaries, but then again doesnt every film featuring romance have some level of "stepping over the PC boundaries"?

Yes, it does, and that's hardly a defense. More in a moment.

"Was it right for Brodie Bruce in mallrats to show that film of Shannon Hamilton in public? Surely not, considering its content, but it was done and we, the audience dont think twice about it."

The use of that film in Mallrats was to expose the criminal behavior of a Shannon. Though questionable IRL, it did serve a valid use in the film itself. But no, it was not right for Brodie to show the film in public. Showing it to the police, however, would have been another matter.

"Take a look at virtually ANY romance film ever created, and you'll ultimately see in whatever "big stunt to win over the girl of his dreams" scene they have, an act done by the male that could be seen (at its most basic level) as very UN-PC. How many times have we seen a man kiss a women, and then promptly receives a slap? Want to chalk that up as sexual harassment? Or have we suddenly killed off a genre."

Well, maybe some genres aren't worth saving. Few people today complain about the demise of "yes, massuh" black servants or of blatantly racist blackface make-up films, once a prominent genre. Oddly, however, this has not prevented filmmakers from continuing to tell stories with black characters.

Typical "romance" films, to my mind, are just as steeped in prejudice as these old blackface flicks. The male characters inevitably engage in behavior that could very well get them arrested IRL, and the female characters inevitably lay aside whatever justifiable objections they had so they can get "swept off their feet." Sometimes this makes for a good movie, and sometimes it doesn't. That's a separate aesthetic issue. The main point here is that men and women are both depicted in romance movies as stereotypes and caricatures, often with little connection to the social realities into which the films are released. I've never been in a relationship that resembles that of the typical romance film, and I've never known anyone else who has, either.

And what's with this "PC" nonsense? If you think it's hopelessly PC to ask that men respect the civil and human rights of women, then maybe you'll never understand this whole discussion.

"Yes, I dont necessarily agree with everything Matt did. But once you over-analyze something to death, it destroys the simple joy it once had. You seemed to want some sort of witch hunt at the end, once Matt confesses what he's been doing (or just makes it official common knowledge)."

As already stated, I and lots of other people take great joy in "over"-analyzing things. It prevents us from becoming passive nimrods, mindlessly soaking up the nonsense that's fed to us every day. It helps us figure out when we're being lied to.

And I didn't expect a witchhunt, although a simple acknowledgement that his actions had (and should have) consequences for him would have been nice. A more satisfying ending for me would have resembled the one in the similarly-themed movie "Sorority Boys." In that one, the guys dragging it up in a sorority actually learn something about themselves and about women's experiences, the women themselves are depicted as something more than a collection of Maxim pinups, and the central male character acknowledges to the "girl of his dreams" that he has wronged her, and doesn't expect or deserve forgiveness for all the lies he's been telling. Of course, he still gets the girl, and since it's a romance film, we expect that. But it's her choice, not his, and the choice is made on the basis of her individual values as a character and not simply because "that's how women are."

"In actual fact, I wouldnt be at all suprised if most of the women were instinctively on to his plan from the beginning, and whilst they might not have wanted the "undergarment" searches, by the half way point during the film he essentially had unquestioned access, and even on the surface it appeared out of apathy (from the desk clerk on ground floor) or simple habit, you'd at least have to consider that they'd know what's happening."

IRL, yes. But nothing in a movie happens by accident, especially when it's written and directed by the same person. If Davis had wanted us to believe that these women actively knew of Matt's deception and were willingly playing along, he could have included a short scene without Matt, showing the central women characters discussing what he's up to and deciding to have some fun with it. But Davis doesn't do this; in fact, it seems like the women in his movie don't communicate with each other at all, unless there's a male presence (usually Matt) to facilitate the discussion. Davis displays a huge blind spot in his depiction of the women here, and like most clueless sexists, probably doesn't think he has one. He's counting on us either to not notice this omission, or to assume, on the basis of our own prejudices about women, that the women are either okay with it, or too naive and girly to care, since they revel in male attention.

"Although, you have to remember that at that time: HE DIDNT KNOW HER IDENTITY. So, let's say he stopped searching right there, does that mean he could violate the "No means NO" rule seeing Patty again, even though he sees her (at that time) as a friend? If Patty was then so against the notion of matt tracking her down, why would she then continue to talk to him, under the notion of friendship?"

Well, that's a very interesting question, and one I'd like to have seen explored, since it would have turned Patty into an actual 3-D character, and not a caricature. If Matt had indeed stopped his search right there, out of respect for his dream girl's boundaries, and continued his friendship with Patty while not knowing that she was the dream girl all along, that would have made 100 Girls a much more interesting story. That could have been a turning point in the both the plot and in the maturation of Matt as a man, learning to lay the foundation of a relationship based on trust and mutual respect, rather than deceit and manipulation. But unfortunately for Matt, Patty and the audience, all the characters here are trapped in Michael Davis's clueless sexism, so it didn't happen.

"Seriously, how much of the film DID YOU ACTUALLY WATCH? I swear, matt says the equivilent of that line multiple times throughout the film."

Yes, Matt says the equivalent throughout the film. My point, however, is that he doesn't BEHAVE as though he actually believes this. For him, "respecting women" is a cynical schtick he uses to get laid, not an actual driving motivation. Hence, my charge of hypocrisy. Matt SAYS he respects women, may even THINK he respects women, but he actually doesn't. And Davis's sexism prevents Matt from learning about or confronting this character flaw, since Davis DOESN'T SEE IT AS A FLAW. He sees it as normal nice guy behavior, which men and women alike are supposed to celebrate.

"Matt wasnt a stalker, he didnt have dark alterior motives. He spent the entire film trying to get ahold of what it means for a man and women to connect, to find a deaper understanding and get to know the residents on different level."

And he accomplishes none of these goals, though Davis thinks he does. At film's end, both Matt and the women remain stereotypes. And yes, Matt is a stalker, objectively speaking.

"Once again, its all about perception. But really, despite the darker tones of what you've said, can you disagree with them?"

Yes, I can disagree with them. In fact, I did. I said, "none of them are true."

"If a male is attracted to the female gender, then could you say that they wouldnt be seduced, inticed, unable to resist? And for that matter, if a woman is attracted to the male gender, wouldn't they also be seduced, inticed and unable to resist? You've taken the statement on how one gender sees the other, and made it a black and white case. If you're seduced, or greatly attracted to another group, you're a rapist. Your analysis makes men, as a group, look like lumbering packs of hormonaly driven cavemen more than the film did."

Sigh. Can you read? I'm saying the exact opposite of this. Why else would I state that those are all baseless lies and prejudices? I think you may be projecting here.

"That happened because you went looking for an alterior motive in a film that's fundamentally doing the same thing the romance genre has been doing for decades."

This film's doing more than that, or trying to, and its motives aren't ulterior, they're on open display. It's full of empty platitudes and sermons about gender, and hence it's doing more than trying to simply "entertain." Davis wants to teach us a lesson; hence, we're justified in critiquing the contents of that lesson.

"You took the definitions of love and rape and made them essentially the same thing."

No, the movie does this, as do many other "romance" movies. I'm perfectly aware of the difference between them. Though that doesn't change the fact that lots of other people (usually men) aren't, but think they are, and end up behaving in a rapist/stalker way instead of a respectful human being way. I'm aware of the difference because I've lived it, and seen it lived. But I've only rarely seen it depicted in romance movies.

"If you want to go all PC on these films, then you've effectively wiped out movies altogether, because being works of fiction, they do tend to push the bar a little, whilst showcasing norms and stereotypes."

Showcasing norms and stereotypes doesn't push the bar, it strenghtens it. UNDERMINING norms and stereotypes and getting the audience to question them is what pushes bars, and most movies don't do this. Especially not "100 Girls," which is a celebration of utterly conventional and retrograde stereotypes about both men and women.

"Unless you've ended every date with a light handshake and the sentence "I have enjoyed your company based on the person you really are as opposed to your physical being which by law I am to remain neutral on its apprasal", then you're just as bad as Matt."

I haven't ended every date this way. However, I do respect other people's bodily integrity, seek another person's informed consent before "making a move," keep lines of communication open and understand that consent to do one thing is not automatically consent to do another. Anyone who doesn't is towing a very fine line, and shouldn't be surprised to find themselves in trouble one day. And they'll have only themselves to blame when it happens.

"But matt's not bad, he's a goodguy, you just painted him to be the devil."

Only someone who shares Matt's (and Davis's) sexism and basic disregard for women can plausibly argue that Matt is a "good guy." What does that say about you?

"I noticed you didnt comment that Matt getting his pants pulled down at the fooseball table was clearly assault, and possibly even sexual assault, which should have required an immediate apology, and those girls to attend counseling to come to terms with their agressive natures and to learn to pull their desires under control. No, you didnt mention it at all."

Actually, this is a half-way valid point. It does potentially count as assault, and IRL, Matt would have been within his rights to demand and receive an apology, provided he didn't want the depantsing to happen. But we're supposed to infer from his reaction that he did, indeed, like this happening to him. But the girls needn't have attended counseling if he was offended. A simple, "I'm sorry, it won't happen again," followed by it actually never happening again, would have sufficed.

"Maybe you just carry your manhood in a purse."

Gosh, you sure gave me what for! :o/

Maybe you should try the red pill for once.