If you read the book, you would know that an all-female team was specifically sent in after multiple previous groups made up of different demographics. It was all part of the ongoing experiment to probe Area X, because none of the other teams returned safely.
So stop your whining, because it makes you look like the "snowflakes".
Exactly... I haven't read the books and yet it is clear to me... Both in story terms as well as philosophically and metaphorically..
Also notice in the military crew that was sent earlier, the masculinity/warrior spirit (Nietzsche?) is being expressed as a destructive nature of the original all male crew manifesting itself in the environment and refracted onto one another... They can't process what's going on due to their lack of scientific knowledge...
The all female crew are the only ones capable of birth, i.e. creation, thus they are successful at reproducing the new form... It's not co-incidental that the lesbian, the mother who lost her child (also lesbian?), the damaged self cutter and the cancer afflicted women do not make it. Yet the healthy, fertile one, Lena, not only survives, but does so in a new form...
Tied to her, is the reproduced model of Kane (biblical?) who has also survived the shimmer having overseen the death of the original (biblical brother Abel?)... Kane is now destained to create decendents together with Lena and pass on their new mutated/refracted genes... Natural selection in action...
In this way, like Ex Machina, Garland is surprisingly and refreshingly "traditional" because he is serious about the different nature of female and male biology, in a way that matters, reproduction... In Ex Machina it was more about identity and sexuality (albeit in it's stunted stereotypical nerd form)... This has nothing tondo with identity politics, SJW or otherwise...
People just got "triggered" by seeing an all female, five member, expedition crew... It's absurd... Why not engagge with the material instead?
Interesting take, although I don't see how lesbianism fits in to the "healthy" narrative (implying that this trait makes one somehow "unhealthy" or "impure", which I really don't see as something the writer would have intended). I do suspect that the concept of female fertility may have been something Alex Garland's script plays into, in the book less so, for reasons that will become apparent if you do end up reading it.
shareSorry, didn't mean to insinuate that it is an illness, rather that a straight woman would pass on her genes naturally, without detecting the mutated gene rather than to have to get IVF or such... Which would probably expose the altered genes...
shareI think I know what you mean. The idea is that lesbianism is genetically predetermined. Nature has chosen not to allow that woman to pass her genes to next generation.
shareOkay, but they have a reason to think that in this current climate. What with the focus on an all-female casts as of late and of course this years Oscars. Hollywood is obviously more interested in female ensembles as opposed to male ones right now replacing the later with the former, Ghostbusters and Oceans come to mind.
Not trying to troll or anything, just trying to delve into that mindset.
Regardless of how true the film is to the book, it's the SJW appearances and all the accompanying superficialities of diversity that explains why critics overly praised a mediocre, forgettable film.
sharehttp://www.metacritic.com/movie/annihilation/critic-reviews
All of the critic review synopses here talk about the film on its own merits, in terms of story and presentation, as opposed to referencing "SJW appearances" and "superficialities of diversity". Regardless of what you thought of the film, if you're going to claim some SJW conspiracy you're going to have to do a lot better than that.
You need to get around more msetc. For example:
http://www.thisisinsider.com/annihilation-movie-review-natalie-portman-alex-garland-2018-2
You think race wasn't on peoples' minds when addressing the merits of this film before and after its release? There were a ton of complaints that the minimal Caucasian presence was too much, and represented a "whitewashing" of what according to the whiners should have been a less diverse cast. Females aren't good enough anymore, not if they're white females, it seems. For example:
https://slate.com/culture/2018/02/annihilation-the-new-movie-starring-natalie-portman-reviewed.html
https://www.marieclaire.com/culture/a18671019/annihilation-movie-2018-review-white-washing/
So get a clue pal. You're woefully underinformed. Stereotypical SJW concerns, of the ugly racist variety, have been front and center in the media since this film was released. You think these clowns judge the movie "by its own merits?" Talk about naive.
What a laughable attempt at a dishonest diversion. Your claim was:
"it's the SJW appearances and all the accompanying superficialities of diversity that explains why critics overly *praised* a mediocre, forgettable film"
I then presented you with a slew of reviews which *praise* the film for things such as:
- "an intelligent film that asks big questions and refuses to provide easy answers. Sci-fi at its best"
- "masterful job of building the mystery"
- "mesmerizing and its awe-inspiring conclusion"
- "It proudly exists on a visceral, sub-verbal level"
etc, etc.
You then cherry pick one favorable review and dredge up articles which are not praising the film but are *critical*, for what you imply are so-called SJW reasons. Not only is this *irrelevant* to your claim that critics *praise* was due to SJW pandering, you also ignore the evidence that runs counter to your claim. That "pal" is known as confirmation bias.
So "pal", it is you who is woefully misinformed or utterly dishonest, take your pick. Your muddled argument is not worth any more of anyone's time.
They're not going to say that in their reviews, they'll praise it for other reasons. But knowing how left wing most critics are, and how politically correct the atmosphere is today, that if a film is overrated that's probably why. Its a bias, it's not something that they admit to in the review, for the most part.
shareIf what you say is true, “A wrinkle in time” would have killed with the critics.
shareYes, and also, there was nothing feminist about their motivation. (Spoilers ahead). One was trying to save her husband, the other one was a bereaved mother, etc. The only "feminist"-leaning character, the militant lesbian paramedic, turned out to be a total a-hole and a villain.
shareIt kinda does, actually. And I'm not thinking about the all-female team aspect of the movie.
I'm thinking about the fact that there's not a single (non-hispanic) white male character in the movie besides few background extras, a paramedic and a soldier we see for few seconds. Now, I wasn't particularly bothered by this, but it got me thinking; you really do have to go out of your way not to cast a single white male in such a big movie involving lots of different characters.
Ah, so now you know how it feels! ;)
Salty people who pride themselves in being thick-skinned and anti-PC love to throw the PC and SJWs labels at basically any movie & product that isn’t white-male driven/has one too many “color folks”. That being the case, I love this “evil” and “unrealistic” representation that infuriates the more conservative crowd.
No, I don't know how it feels since most movies are very diverse anyways. As for the movies where most characters are white, you'd have to be pretty stupid to get upset over it, especially if, like in most cases, it takes place in the US which is still majority white. Just like it would be silly to get upset over movie set in ghetto or Africa being all black.
And it's a total BS that diverse representation infuriates the more conservative crowd. I rarely hear someone complaining about "too many color folks" besides minority of extremists on the internet. All the time we hear it from all the tabloids, blogs, critics, celebrities... everyone screams that we need more diversity. If somebody, somehow managed to make a movie without minorities (like LOTR) today, the uproar would be unimaginable. When the "conservative crowd" gets infuriated, it's mostly a few anonymous internet posters here and there, so harly comparable.
Also, I'd like to point out a distinction here - motive. When a movie lacks diversity, in most cases it isn't intentional or motivated by racism. Nobody today intentionally casts whites in order to make a movie with as least as possible non-whites.
But on the other hand, there's plenty of movies that pride themselves in the opposite and sometimes even seek to replace the traditionally white/male characters. Motive? Virtue signaling and pettiness.
Like I said, I don't think any of it is worth getting angry, but it sometimes deserves to be made fun of, and that's exactly what most people are doing (new Ghostbusters were good example).
Interesting observation. I see your point, but it is a fairly underpopulated movie, as most midbudget movies are these days. There are only three men who have more than one or two lines. Kane, the colleague and the interviewer.
At least they didn't do the cliche white male authority figure as devil thing... But Alex Garland, the writer/director seems far to sophisticated for that kind of pandering to identity politics...
I think he cast Oscar Isaac as Kane due to having worked with him in his earlier movie, Ex Machina... I recommend you check that out if you haven't. Solid film.
Oscar Isaac could pass for Italian or for a Spaniard, but I do see your point. I'm not convinced it is intentional in this case, simply because the director hasn't done so in his earlier movie and it seems that he cast Isaac because they worked together rather than to fit a type...
However, it is a noteworthy observation given the topic we're discussing đź‘Ť
Well, directors usually aren't solely responsible for the entire casting, so that's not where I'm looking. Btw I loved his Ex Machina and Oscar Isaac is a good actor too.
shareThe (rightly or wrongly) perceived "sjw" appeasing collection of characters didn't bother me. What did bother me was the ludicrous suggestion that they were sent in because they had "nothing to lose". I enjoyed the film, but that was just ridiculous. Reminded me of the two characters in Prometheus who get left in the cave complex, both completely eccentric and unsuitable for a billion dollar deep space mission. Astronauts are chosen for their almost robotic personalities, the ability to remain calm and efficient under extreme and unusual stress. The same would go for those chosen to enter the Shimmer, in particular that unstable and hugely annoying lesbian character who tied everybody up would never have been chosen. And also, in "reality"they would have entered in Hazmat suits with gas masks on, not Lara Croft type uniforms.
shareI just wish they'd explained why they sent in an all female crew.
Why do they assume the failure of the previous crew is rooted in gender?
Now to be honest, I wouldn't particularly care unless the movie made a point to make a point of it. The lead character is introduced to the crew and observes out loud that it is an all female expedition. Ok. But why then? And this is not something that needs to be discovered or inferred or even spoon-fed later on in the film. The people in charge would already know why they are selecting an all female crew and would make sure to explain it.
So if this isn't SJW virtue-signaling or female-empowerment ego trips, I won't insist that it is. It's their movie to cast as they please. But in real life there is no way they would send a group of only women into a potentially violent and hostile arena. The group would have at least a few special forces hard ass men in it. Unless there was a specific reason to select only women. And the movie seems to suggest there is a damn good reason. Great. So what in the hell is it?
[none]
It was only Anya's speculation that this all women scientists team was a different approach since all previous military teams failed. Actually, the expedition was a cover-up of the psychologist's one-way solo mission. She selected 3 "damaged goods" to accompany her, so that no matter what happen in the Shimmer she could keep them under her command with any mean necessary (hypnosis). I guess she could also find an army guy with trauma that she could manipulate. But if things got out of her control and everyone else went insane, then the army guy could become more dangerous than a female scientist.
shareWhen whinging Natalie Portman is cast in a movie, it will always carry a PC/SJW stigma unfortunately. The more bombs she headlines the less likely we'll see her in blockbusters so that's a good outcome anyway, and she'll eventually go the way of Demi Moore.
share