MovieChat Forums > Knight and Day (2010) Discussion > Undercurrent of misogyny

Undercurrent of misogyny


I agree with the one female critic who slammed this film as misogynistic. After watching it, I agree. I see it. Just look at Cameron Diaz's character, June Haven. It makes me wonder why Diaz signed on do this dumbed-down role? This film treats women like naive, docile, powerless creatures. Maybe she wanted to work with Tom Cruise again? I found it interesting when Roy says to another woman that June is a "nobody, just somebody I picked up along the way". Its so true I doubt Angelina Jolie would touch this role. It would've made sense if it were a tongue-in-cheek character, but its not.

There's nothing wrong with damsel-in-distress sort of characters, but if they lack intelligence and substance, they become irritating. The June character never uses her head. She's always clueless about everything. She doesn't know when she's being tricked, when danger is imminent(the scene before the shootout where she jumps the gun---no pun intended---before Roy counts the three) or what's happening around her(the airplane scene). Her character's head is perpetually in the clouds..."Where am I?"..."Who are you?"..."I don't know what is going on". She's always getting drugged, bound, controlled, etc. She relies too much on Roy to save her. She hardly does anything--except fire off a few rounds here and there--empowering.

I think part of the reason this film didn't work is because it takes itself very seriously. I could've worked as a spoof.

What's beef? Beef is when I see you, guaranteed to be in ICU --The Notorious B.I.G.

reply

[deleted]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you suggest that this film is the slightest bit misandric. The fact that Tom Cruise's boss is a woman does not make this film misandric. And, oh wait, she totally gets played by her male agents and is an antagonist in this movie. Notice how every single thing that is going bad in this film is all Cameron Diaz's fault. How many times does she almost kill Tom Cruise in this movie because she panics. This film isn't portraying how "us 99.9% of normal people would act". It is portraying a stereotypical dumb blonde. How about her firefighter boyfriend. His worst mistake is chasing after a guy with a gun, getting shot, and becoming a hero. And the guy who invents the zephyr? They try to make him into the nerdiest person they can and the worst thing that happens is he doesn't fight anyone and passes out. But along the way he still does all sorts of badass things anyway.

reply

[deleted]

"It would've made sense if it were a tongue-in-cheek...but its not. ... (this film) could've worked as a spoof."

What?! What are you talking about! This whole movie IS a tongue-in-cheek spoof!! How could you watch this film and not realize that??

reply

Thank you aRealCoolGuy! How is it that so many people miss that? I had to explain it to someone repeatedly throughout the viewing. I thought it was very well done and a fun, light action romp. A great nod to the ridiculousness that we are constantly asked to swallow in most mainstream action movies, while giving us those same far fetched sequences that we love so much - just with the added acknowledgment that they are completely implausible.

reply



Clark's Destiny = Superman, Lex Luthor & Lois Lane.

reply

>This film treats women like naive, docile, powerless creatures.

I've found that people who use the word "misogynist" are generally looking for a reason to use it.

This movie is not a good target. For one thing, in theory any person who was in June's situation would spend half the movie being a gibbering idiot. The script was written for Justin Long! Yet if it had been two men in the lead roles, we would've gotten "why are women never cast as leads in spy movies?"

Knight's boss is a very capable female who ends the movie by having him cashiered. And he is saved by... who?

reply

The three most overused words I can think of at the moment.

Retarded
Overrated
Misogynist

Clark's destiny = Superman, Lex Luthor & Lois Lane.

reply

I did not think it was.

The only people capable of anything were the secret agent types...

the fireman, and the scientist kid, were both out of it.
until the end and then Diaz's character becomes empowered.

it was a spoof.. and better than I expected.
I enjoyed it.
It was similar to Real Men with James Belushi and John Ritter..

light fun... 6.5 for me.

reply

They actually show June kicking more a$$ than Simon (the scientist kid). So, WTF is up these peoples' a$$es when they go into a movie like this?

I'd personally like to see Sean Connery walk up to feminists like the reviewer mentioned and give her a good slap on her ass.

reply

Either the OP is joking or he/she completely missed the point of this movie. It is 100% tongue in cheek. That's the beauty. I would suggest watching it again knowing this and perhaps your perspective will change.

As to any misogyny? I have to disagree there as well. June isn't stupid. She's just completely unprepared for being thrown head first into a life or death game of international intrigue and secret agent double crosses. How many of us would respond any better in real life? We all know what to do from watching movies but if it really happened my guess is we wouldn't fare any better than she did. Roy, on the other hand, is a trained professional agent so it makes sense that he's skilled, capable and cool headed. Plus, by the end of the film June has figured out that Roy was trying to keep her safe and is still alive, then rescues him from the hospital and successfully gets him to safety. We even got the bookends of first him telling her that her chances are better "with me" and then her telling that to him at the end.

I really would recommend a second viewing, not to try to change your mind (you have a right to your opinion) but to see if you might notice different themes than the ones you saw the first time around.

reply

I think that many people would handle it better. While I disagree with the OP strongly, many people in real life do have the presence of mind to behave better (just not that much better).

And many people also have the skills that would come in useful. For example, many people belong to government militias (as I do) and are trained in arms. At the very least, even if you have no arms training, many occupations require a care and understanding of the world about you, such as engineers and so forth.

reply

When you go into the highly dangerous field of classic car maintenance and repair, you have to be as skilled as a Navy Seal. It's a fact of life. In order to change tires, you also have to be able to take apart and reassemble an M-16 within 30 seconds.

reply

Hmmm. What nonsense are you saying? It doesn't even seem ironic, just plain nonsense.

reply

I don't want to see this movie and never will, but I say "good" if it has an undercurrent of misogyny. Why, you ask? Because the day that Hollywood decides to make every movie be sensitive to political correctness, that's the day movies become worthless.

reply

Iron Eagle74, if you mean that it would be good to have movies with misogynistic characters I'd agree that could be a good topic to cover. That's different from having a movie actually be misogyinistic though, which was the claim of the OP for this thread. I can't see any point in promoting misogyny or any other kind of hate for that matter.

And I'm curious why you say you don't want to see this movie and never will, if it's because of reviews you read or you just don't like one or more of the people involved. But under the circumstances it seems a little odd that you're reading the threads on this board.

reply

beyond misogyny: it has a date rapist's undercurrent. how many times does she just 'wake up' next to her 'hero' with no memory of how she got there?




His name...was Julio Iglesias!

reply

She evened the score when she drugged him and changed him into his shorts "without looking"



Cheese fries...next time.

reply

true. love the ft's movie reviews of this 'type of movie'. it's like actually funny...so unlike the movie!


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e13eeccc-9fdc-11df-8cc5-00144feabdc0.html#ix zz2BnlyQRXt

Cameron Diaz almost makes Knight and Day worth watching. The screwball spy thriller is a genre that shouldn’t exist, a bio-hazardous hybrid responsible for horrors like Mr and Mrs Smith. Casual death and comedy? Step carefully. Here Tom Cruise kills a planeful of people before the movie has reached 30,000 feet (they are enemy agents), then adopts Diaz as his good luck charm – she was on the flight – as he goes around the world killing more people. If director James Mangold was ever asked by the studio what the movie’s plot was, before it was greenlighted, he can only have replied: “It’s about you giving us money to go to Brazil, Spain, Austria and the South Seas."

Chases breed chases, murders murders, and Cruise, extravagantly tousled and cowlicked, resembles an action-man doll having a big hair day. Diaz gets to do the kooky reaction shots – variants on “What have I got myself into now?” – and is resourceful to the last. Remember, this woman made There’s Something About Mary the funniest film of the late 1990s. She is a trouper. She won’t stop trying. While there is shtick, there is life.







His name...was Julio Iglesias!

reply

I laugh every time something implausible happens, which is most of the movie and implausibility is its intent. A ton of movie magic must have gone into the part where Roy spinned perfectly into the parking space at the top of the parking garage at a fairly high speed. Cracks me up



Cheese fries...next time.

reply

I just watched this. She doesn't "wake up next to" Cruise's character ever in this movie. She's alone each and every time. She's drugged to make it easier and more expedient to get her out of danger. Unbelievable how things are distorted, taken out of content, and just plain misrepresented by people. Wow.

Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?

reply

Agreed.

I frequently find myself thinking "Did we watch the same film?"

reply

Careful. Those were logical arguments. You're trying to reason with people who are so irrational in their gynocentricism that they are in fact totally and utterly illogical.

I guess we should throw every doctor in prison for operating on an unconscious patient. God knows. That doctor violated that patient because he or she wasn't conscious enough to agree to the surgery.

A man like Miller is NOT some date rapist so much as a professional spy, most likely trained in any and all medicine procedures.

reply