Can you imagine three men teaming up to destroy a woman's life for sleeping with all of them? Would that work in a hollywood movie? Getting her fired, beaten up, sabotaging her hormones, thrown in prison and all seen as justified and funny? There are already multiple movies with this exact plot of women destroying a man's life seen as a positive but could it work with a woman being the one suffering and being laughed at?
shareThe man in this film was not only a serial womaniser but also a fraudster who was setting up his own wife to take the rap.
Let us really feel sorry for him. This lying, cheating thief is being hard done by.
It's that man again!!
I know he was written to be unsympathetic but you didn't answer any of my questions. Could such a film exist with the genders flipped?
shareI was thinking that while watching it, and I would definitely be down for that type of movie. I somewhat enjoyed The Other Woman for what it was. Kept thinking about what if three guys were getting screwed over by a married woman who is a fraud and a liar. I love vicious women in film, but it is incredibly satisfying when justice serves them (think Cruel Intentions). She'd have to be married and pretend to be loyal to her seemingly pathetic husband (the Leslie Mann character).
Part of equality is that both genders should respect each other and be able be the one on the receiving end.
I think a movie like that would however get slammed after a trailer would be released.
Anatidaephobia; the fear that somewhere, somehow, a duck is watching you.
A man would say "&@$& that @$&$&" and be done with it. Or resort to physical violence like hendrix's "hey joe." There would not be a long, thought out revenge plot
The whole point of these movies are revenge fantasies for women.
Is it a well known FACT of life then that women and men are not only different but that they also HANDLE these matters as such differently and hence cinema seems to tangently reflect this mood that states that under these or that circumstances, it is like this and therefore like that if women do it but different (and possibly with more outrage etc) if men were to do it.
And is it really logical that we, as civilized society, often treat men and women differently for the SAME activity?
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
They have made a movie about that, just look up Evil Woman. Two guys kidnap their friends girlfriend as she is a manipulative sociopath. They electrocute her, tie her up and even half heartedly plot to kill her....and it's hilarious.
There are probably way more films about women getting their own back on men because of the genre and the demographic who will watch it. Also consider the history of the 'three witches' Shakespearian context used in many other media outlets - in songs and tv programmes.
Alright - I'll look into it.
P.S. Is anyone ELSE getting THIS message before they reply OR start a thread ANYWHERE on IMDb -
"Please remember to ensure all your postings are made in compliance with our terms and conditions. Please pay particular attention to the rules in section #2 and the punishments in section #3. In the event of a violation, IMDb may remove your entire posting history, not only the messages which are specifically in violation and your account may be permanently blocked from posting."
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
By the way, there's something fascinatingly disturbing and beautifully mysterious surrounding the double standards, if they exist at all, and the whole "civilized vs ignorant" societies matters (if there is any point in this nit picking) in cinema portraying either men or women as villains or avenging angels or even victims at times.
And at IMBd boards - they will nearly ALWAYS lead to controversial arguments if not at times flame wars - but neither happenings here will EVER reflect the actual reality of these things so much that even with all of this going on, either official standard traditional evil or unfair exceptions, however LESS harmful, will be lessened just like that let alone cease to exist.
And stupidity and intelligence also are in the eyes of the beholder.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
Didn't you ever see Saving Silverman?
shareI think I saw most of it on tv once, all I remember was the lead woman outsmarting, manipulating and beating up the idiotic and incompetent men trying to kidnap her and get in her way. I don't remember her suffering more than the male leads in any way or her getting tortured or beaten or arrested and having her life ruined or anything like that. That movie is noteworthy in the sense that it had a female 'antagonist' but she wasn't really portrayed and treated like the antagonist in this one and the lead men in Saving Silverman were treated very differently than the lead women in this movie, with most of the laughs being at their expense not the antagonist's.
shareI don't remember her suffering more than the male leads in any way or her getting tortured or beaten or arrested and having her life ruined or anything like that.
There are similarities between these movies but no I don't think a movie has been made like the other woman with the genders flipped. There are significant differences that you are overlooking. In this movie the lead women are intelligent, competent and get their revenge and a happy ending while the lead man suffers the entire movie and loses everything. In saving Silverman the lead men are incompetent and useless and they suffer the whole movie while the lead woman doesn't really suffer at all and gets a happy ending.
She had been taken somewhere against her will but she was never scared or intimidated or the butt of the joke. The male protagonists are the ones getting beaten up and outsmarted by the female antagonist so we can laugh at their suffering instead of the other way around like the other woman.
If saving Silverman was a gender flipped version of this story then the lead men would destroy her life (you don't mention how they poison him and sabotage his body hormones) without getting beaten up and constantly outplayed by her. The joke would be on her instead of them. And you say that she was a bitch but nobody deserves to suffer like she did but the antagonist in the other woman brought it on himself and did deserve it? If one of them deserves to suffer and the other doesn't then they're not the same thing are they?
And you say that she was a bitch but nobody deserves to suffer like she did but the antagonist in the other woman brought it on himself and did deserve it?
Well if the antagonist in this movie is a thief who deserves to have his life ruined then that's pretty different than the antagonist in Saving Silverman who doesn't deserve to suffer isn't it? Are they really the same movie with the genders flipped if the protagonists and the antagonists are treated completely differently in the two movies? And what about my other points?
In the Other Woman the comedy comes from the competent female protagonists besting the male antagonist again and again and making him suffer before they get a happy ending and he continues to suffer after the movie ends. In Saving Silverman the comedy comes from the competent female antagonist besting the incompetent male protagonists again and again and making them suffer before everyone including the antagonist get happy endings. That seems like a significant difference to me.
She got kidnapped but she was never scared or intimidated, she just dominated her captors mentally and physically the whole time. The audience is not laughing at her pain but the pain of the male protagonists.
The focus in The Other Woman was on the male antagonist being the butt of the joke, the focus of Saving Silverman was on the male protagonists being the butt of the joke.
The antagonist in The Other Woman is not outsmarting, manipulating, and beating up the protagonists so we can laugh at them, he's suffering so that we can laugh at him. The antagonist in Saving Silverman is outsmarting, manipulating, and beating up the protagonists so that we can laugh at them, her suffering was pretty minor compared to their's.
Of course the woman in Saving Silverman was scared. She was being kidnapped. Just because she was tough and outwitted them doesn't mean that it wasn't as bad as what these women did in the other woman. She was still locked in a basement and tied to a chain. That's still pretty messed up. Again, nothing like that happened to him. She even cried to her boyfriend and talked about what happened to her and how scared she was.
Yeah the guys in Saving Silverman had nothing in life going for them but what does that have to do with anything?
So you're basically saying the guy in this film should have more sympathy just because these women were successful and smart?
I don't understand what you're getting at by comparing the success from both parties.
I don't understand how you aren't seeing this. I asked if there was a gender flipped version of the scenario that this movie presents. You offered up Saving Silverman. These two movies are very different and I've been explaining to you how those huge differences make them something other than gender flipped versions of each other. The fact that you keep bringing up how terrible and unjust the female antagonist's suffering was but how completely justified and not that bad the male antagonist's suffering was really makes it clear that these are very different stories that treat their characters very differently. You say that this antagonist deserved the suffering he went through but the antagonist in the other movie didn't deserve the suffering she went through. Clearly they not the same kind of story.
This movie is about a male antagonist being dominated by the female protagonists. He doesn't get a happy ending, he doesn't beat them up or outsmart them or manipulate them, he was written to be unsympathetic and his pain and suffering at the hands of the leads is the main source of comedy. The female protagonists are all intelligent people who outwit, manipulate and inflict suffering on the antagonist again and again without ever suffering any physical injury themselves. This movie is about women dominating a man as we laugh at his suffering.
Saving Silverman is about a female antagonist dominating the male protagonists. She does get a happy ending, she beats up the male leads and inflicts far more pain and embarassment on them than they do on her, she outsmarts and manipulates them easily, she gets tied up at one point but her suffering in the scene is not really played for laughs, she was written to be somewhat sympathetic and she had total control over herself and her captors. The male protagonists are all stupid people who get beaten up, outwitted, and manipulated by the antagonist again and again. Their pain and suffering at the hands of the antagonist is the main source of comedy. Saving Silverman is about a woman dominating men as we laugh at their suffering. That's not a gender flip from the other movie.
I must be completely misremembering how terrifying and traumatic her horrible undeserved suffering was because I remember her calmly talking to them and being in total control of the situation in between scenes of kicking their asses and humiliating them. Was anyone laughing at her for being tied to a chair? Was she ever the butt of the joke? Was her pain and suffering ever played as a good and justified thing? In this movie the antagonist is suffering and his suffering is being laughed at. That's not the same thing as a sympathetic antagonist mentally and physically dominating a protagonist while we laugh at the protagonist's suffering. Both of these movies are about men being dominated and humiliated by women while the audience laughs at the men's pain and suffering. I was asking if there's a gender flip of that and if it could possibly exist.
I understand what you are saying. But your original question was asking if this could be done by a bunch of men taking down a woman. And my answer was Saving Silverman.
Just because the men in Saving Silverman weren't successful or smart like the women in the movie, doesn't make my answer less correct. They still tried to ruin her life. They still sabotaged her. Just because she did get a happy ending, doesn't justify their actions for kidnapping her. Just because she was still tough and outwitted them, doesn't justify them trying to take down her life. That doesn't mean it's not the same thing.
The point of me saying all this is that you seem to think just because they weren't successful in taking her down like these women, that doesn't qualify.. I understand your point. This man had the worst happen to him in the end and the woman from Saving Silverman didn't because she got a happy ending. But they still tortured her. They tried to fight her, kidnap her, and drugged her (shot her with a tranquilizer dart). So yes, there was physical harm on her. You are basically saying this type of film couldn't be done because if there was harm done on a woman, then there would be outrage. But there has been a movie done like this. My example, Saving Silverman. There was harm done.
Yes, she was scared. She was tough and strong, but still scared. Even if she wasn't scared, it doesn't justify anything. She found her boyfriend and was crying to him about how scared she was and what happened to her. So to answer your question, yes it does exist that men have tried to take down a woman in a movie. Just because they weren't successful in many things, doesn't mean it's not the same thing. It was still their INTENTIONS. Even if they were successful at the majority of their plans, it still could be done. There was no outrage when that movie came out. No one talked about how they were terrible people for kidnapping a woman and holding her hostage to ruin her chances of marrying their best friend. At least no one I knew complained. I thought it was funny, as I am a woman myself.
Besides, they were successful, imo. They ruined her chances of marrying her fiance which was their plan all along. They kidnapped her so her fiance could spend more time with this old friend of his and fell love in love with her. So yes, they did succeed.
Ok. You're putting forward Saving Silverman as a similar gender flipped plot. TOW has female protagonists working against a male antagonist, while SaSi has male protagonists working against a female antagonist. In that sense, yes you could say that they are similar in terms of story with opposite genders. You're not wrong.
There is a huge difference between these movies that you yourself keep bringing up. The male antagonist deserved to suffer, his pain was funny and the women were justified in everything they chose to do to make him suffer, while the female antagonist did not deserve to suffer, her pain was not funny, and the men going against her were not justified in your opinion for doing what they did to her. The audience is supposed to laugh at the pain of one antagonist but not the other. The treatment of the characters differs sooo greatly between the movies that it makes them feel like totally different things.
Maybe I should have been more clear in my initial question. Do you think a movie could exist if it was about men trying to take down a woman if the female antagonist actually deserved to suffer at their hands and her pain was played as a good thing? Could such a movie exist if the antagonist woman's pain and suffering was deserved and played as a justified and funny thing like the suffering of the male antagonist in this one? Could a movie exist like TOW with the genders flipped if the protagonists and antagonists were treated the same as they were here?
Maybe I should have been more clear in my initial question. Do you think a movie could exist if it was about men trying to take down a woman if the female antagonist actually deserved to suffer at their hands and her pain was played as a good thing?
The thing is - men and women are different by nature in MANY ways and as a result, not only people in life but the medium of cinema has proven that we often treat men and women, as civilized people, different for the same activity, and whilst some methods of retaliation on a man as a result may be seen in that sense appropriate, it wouldn't be seen the same way on a woman.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
I do agree with you.
However, I also feel like times are a bit different now. People are seeing the double standards and are calling it out, which is good. But yes, I do feel that there are some people that still choose to be ignorant about it.
I saw bits of it long time ago but not the whole thing - will have to see it again.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
By the way, on a totally different note andrewrrr, since this type of movie material interests you so much and you are into those big discussions about it all, it would be interesting if you could make a thread at the board for "40 Days and 40 Nights" (2002) and discuss that final much controversial gender reversal r*pe scene (you probably HAVE seen it, I suppose, I have).
And by the way also - you can sorta make a comparison between this movie The Other Woman and that one 40 Days and 40 Nights (2002) based on how it shows the differences between how we as audience often treat men and women differently but for either the same or similar situations - and you can also throw that movie into that "Misandry - the acceptable form of sexism today" thread over here that is so popular.
In both films, you could by that logic say that it is somewhat considered not as gravely serious for a woman to hurt a man than it is for a man to hurt a woman in similar situations (and although in 40 Days and 40 Nights the act of gender reversal r*pe was serious and bad enough in and of itself, it also showed it in such a way that a guy didn't think twice about accepting it as his fault - and he also had to apologize for that to his new girlfriend even though he was nothing short of a victim - almost similar to how this movie is saying it is acceptable for women to exact some kind of cruel vengeance on a cheating man).
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
I've never seen that movie and I don't plan to. Not only did I hear it was a bad movie but I did hear about the rape scene and it sounds disgusting. I hate any type of movie that depicts something like that for comedic effect.
shareAnd I take it that applies for gender reversal rape scenes as well where the man is a victim at the hands of a woman in such case, however rare in life OR cinema it is, on its own or compared to traditional examples?
Also - what did you think of Eli Roth's "Knock Knock" (2015) with Keanu Reeves that had him as the victim of two women in such unusual role reversal scenarios?
And yes I have indeed seen "40 Days and 40 Nights" (2002) and that final scene between our unconscious lead character and his previous girlfriend still causes outrage for the way it was handled as well as the fact that it even was inserted at all - and it is little known if the director ACTUALLY tried to make an intelligent albeit satirical and darkly comic point with it or just include it for unique shock value to elevate the movie from the "American Pie" and to a bigger extent - "Freddy Got Fingered" (2001) Hollywood comedy shlock out there.
By the way, we figure that it can be bad as well if it is done even by a woman against an unwilling man, not just because of laws, morality and other indirect consequences, but I have seen and heard plenty even intelligent men say they wouldn't mind it if it happened to them, as long as nothing ELSE bad happens.
Have you seen Skip Woods' "Thursday" (1998) by the way?
In arguably that film's most controversial scene, we have a woman who rapes a man, and she does it to him while he is tied up at gunpoint - and I've read plenty of men at that film's board say, Jesus Christ, that they would "love" it if it happened to them like that - but something tells me, besides their potentially masochistic nature, that they think that way because they know that there may be, short of murder, worse things to experience in life for them even in similar field, and that if they had to choose a lesser evil, they'll choose this? You will NEVER for example even REMOTELY hear a woman say she would choose something like this and women in this day and age are very careful especially in life with regards to sexuality, arguably more so than men.
And by the way, flowerchild, say if it happens against an INNOCENT man, like in movies like, I believe, "Ai no corrida" (1976) where a woman has castrated a man - would you say that is WORSE than if she were to rape him, given how in that film the man was arguably innocent.
Mind you, I wouldn't necessarily want the former to happen to me EITHER, although people say matter of such caliber is rather rare compared to standard and similar examples in life statistically (sorry I have no time OR desire to go into details, but in the back of my mind I AM aware of all of this no doubt!), but if I had a choice?
The point is, often the very same civilized people have displayed a DOUBLE STANDARD on this type of issue here, practically not too DISSIMILAR to how this movie - The Other Woman - seems to say it is acceptable for women to exact cruel vengeance on a man who cheats.
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
Another comparison you can make between this movie and 40 Days & 40 Nights is that if you consider both this and that movie to be bad, whatever the reasons, and disappointing, you could still say its director as either director or another member of say film's cast or crew, has done better or even MUCH better works elsewhere.
(The director of "40 Days and 40 Nights" (2002) Michael Lehmann, for example, in 1989 directed a brilliant movie "Heathers" that I highly recommend. Nick Cassavetes at least did good work elsewhere as an ACTOR, not to mention his late FATHER, John Cassavetes, has directed several brilliant films himself.)
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!
And 2 flower child, can you believe that the same actress that played the, well, "bad lady in question" in "40 Days and 40 Nights" (2002) also played a highly likeable hooker in the "So, shall we?" scene from legendary late director Stanley Kubrick's final swan song "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999)? Yes, you read that correctly!
The greatest trick the Devil has ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!