|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 10, 2011 15:52:02 GMT -5
believe it or not, i'd known about fujiwara because he'd written an article about zooming that was pretty mind-blowing, so i felt a bit broadsided when he came down on mst3k, because previously i'd been an admirer of his, though i always thought he was a little pretentious. smart people and things tend to be. hell, magnolia IS kinda pretentious. because, you know, it's brilliant.
i actually think he sees himself as a kind of archivist of old and forgotten cinema, he writes a lot about italian spaghetti westerns and things like that, and i think he sees mst3k as a threat to that. but actually they're on the same side, he just doesn't know it.
his reaction to the colossal ep guide is actually quite funny. he's all, "they don't say anything about the movies! they just talk about the host segments and the way they describe them doesn't make any sense!" and again, yeah, that's exactly right and that's what makes it so funny. i love the bizarre way they describe the host segs in the ep guide.
|
|
|
Post by Squeeze Pimmel on Feb 11, 2011 16:00:24 GMT -5
I found that article to be interesting. If the rest of the book is like that, I'm certainly going to buy it. MST3K is truly post-modern storytelling. Back in the early '90s, my 20th Century Art professor described MST3K as an art form in terms of simulacra. Up until that point, I had simply regarded MST3K as a funny puppet show. Ever since then, I realize how unique it was. In fact, it's very nature (the acquiring of movie rights) prohibits it from being easily replicated. And there are no other "horror host" shows that interact with the movie and the audience at the same time to such far-reaching cultural sub-references. Don't I sound smart? Derp.
|
|
|
Post by mummifiedstalin on Feb 11, 2011 23:31:28 GMT -5
oo, i'd like to read the feminist reading of mst! i almost think i'd like it better if it's roiling and full of rage. I knew I'd find it if I stopped looking and just let my subconscious remind me where I could find it: "What's Happening on Earth? Mystery Science Theater 3000 as Reflection of Gender Roles and Attitudes toward Women" by Jessica A. Royer, in Fantasy Girls: Gender in the New Universe of Science Fiction and Fantasy Television, edited by Elyce Rae Helford (Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, 115-33). I apparently even started a thread about it LO! these many years ago.
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 12, 2011 3:45:00 GMT -5
oo, i'd like to read the feminist reading of mst! i almost think i'd like it better if it's roiling and full of rage. I knew I'd find it if I stopped looking and just let my subconscious remind me where I could find it: "What's Happening on Earth? Mystery Science Theater 3000 as Reflection of Gender Roles and Attitudes toward Women" by Jessica A. Royer, in Fantasy Girls: Gender in the New Universe of Science Fiction and Fantasy Television, edited by Elyce Rae Helford (Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, 115-33). I apparently even started a thread about it LO! these many years ago. cool! i googled it and think i actually came up with it! tinyurl.com/4egurjaoo, i started to read it and already a bit of a blooper: she expects the show to "live on in reruns", which is most decidedly what it did NOT do. it lived on through tape trading. its syndication record was all troubled because of the licensing issues. ok, i'm kinda skimming it (partly because a bunch of the pages are missing). she makes a lot about how the characters are all male, which, admittedly, is something i'd noticed too. i think her characterization of the staff as "male dominated" tends to marginalize the contribution of folks like bridget jones and beez mckeever. there were actually a fair number of writers and staff who were women, though calling it "male dominated" overall is probably basically fair. i have to be honest, her critique of colossal beast, that most of the lines they speak through carol make her look airheaded, feckless or otherwise dumb and incapable. i've noticed that before, and it bothers me a bit. on the other hand, they tend to make EVERYone dull, overbearing, airheaded, etc., because they have to make the show funny, and you do that by making fun of the characters, not by praising them. also, mulvey and the male gaze? can we move on from that, already? even in 1999 that was already pretty old. lol. i think she's way overpitching this idea that mst3k is designed to create an all-male environment and exclude women -- which, again, there IS an argument to be made there, i mean, jeez, look at the psycho homemaker skit from "design for dreaming"! the thing she misses is that mst3k actually does that in a very self-aware way, not the unironic way of, say, your typical bud light ad or 80s sex comedy. the design for dreaming skit is done in a way that seems to be ABOUT the male "treehouse" mentality, and there are lots of ways in which the hosts, particularly mike, overpitch their bachelorhood, their immaturity, their isolation from women. (think mike's cheese factory character in "time chasers.") but in real life, of course, mike's a charming, together family man, at least so far as i know, and nuveena's played, quite cleverly, by his WIFE. so it's a little hard to say M&tBs are actually telling men they shouldn't relate to women in that sketch. also, there's the very clever joel sketch about why 60s sitcoms always feature single fathers raising children alone. episode slips my mind. as i recall though this is really an instance of what the author is after, mst3k using its platform to theorize, examine gender roles, etc., all while being sorta self-aware of the way its own gender politics are skewed. to the extent there's anything funny about the single fathers skit, it's the joke that J&tBs are their own embodiment of that relationship, but they never have that moment of, hey! WE're like a single father raising kids alone! but if joel robinson isn't aware of that, joel hodgson is, which is why the sketch is written the way it is, and why that part's funny. i dunno, i also think she's glossing over women's roles in 50s and 60s sci-fi etc. way too much. she seems to see it as, women in the 50s were disempowered, like all they ever do is faint and wait for their man to save them. which, fair enough, happens pretty often (and still does, in movies today) but 50s sci fi often has quite strong female characters. cf. beverly garland, obviously, but also invaders from mars, the incredible shrinking man, beginning of the end, the crawling eye, 12 to the moon, rocketship x-m, etc. true, these movies also tend to have overbearing chauvinistic characters, but that's a bit of a different, though related, issue. i've always been particularly struck by rocketship x-m, how it shows this capable career woman struggling to negotiate this patronizing, but also plainly threatened, traditional male establishment (and what's worse, she's trapped on a rocket while doing so!), and that the movie itself very knowingly showing this struggle, and often seems to be expecting us to sympathize with the woman, particularly when she's dealing with the jerk senior scientist who questions her mathematical work based solely on her gender. i dunno, so i think her understanding of women's roles in 50s movies is a bit simplistic -- it's not so much that women were exclusively objectified or shown as victims so much as, when they WERE empowered, it was in somewhat stereotypical ways, like how the psychic in crawling eye is nonlinear, empathetic and intuitive, traditionally feminine roles, for instance. AND she's too simplistic about the "treehouse mentality" thing in mst3k. i mean, yes, there IS some of that element, but i also think the show is aware of that and interacts with it in its content. it's not some sort of simplistic male fantasy of a world without women, but it does seem to often be ABOUT that mentality, to use that mentality as a way of getting at other points or performing satire. all that said, i think a lot of her criticisms are genuine. the character of gypsy has always bothered me a bit, and the reasons why she explains quite nicely (she's presented as vapid and air-headed, and when we ask why, we learn it's because she's burdened with the domestic chores? yeah, i dunno, sorry...). i think the catcall riffs can be annoying ("paddle with your panties, or your breasts"? i mean come on, you can do better than that!), etc., etc. but by and large these are pretty venal sins. i think she could do a much more interesting and nuanced gender reading of mst3k if she weren't so focused on painting the show as purely sexist. it's not, but it does have elements that are, and i also think it has moments where it's very self-aware of the problems she talks about. (cf. crow's doc about the impossibility of finding a woman...)
|
|
|
Post by TheNewMads on Feb 12, 2011 3:45:33 GMT -5
wow. sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Mar 24, 2011 20:35:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by msmystie3000 on Mar 24, 2011 23:00:54 GMT -5
I knew I'd find it if I stopped looking and just let my subconscious remind me where I could find it: "What's Happening on Earth? Mystery Science Theater 3000 as Reflection of Gender Roles and Attitudes toward Women" by Jessica A. Royer, in Fantasy Girls: Gender in the New Universe of Science Fiction and Fantasy Television, edited by Elyce Rae Helford (Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, 115-33). I apparently even started a thread about it LO! these many years ago. cool! i googled it and think i actually came up with it! tinyurl.com/4egurjaoo, i started to read it and already a bit of a blooper: she expects the show to "live on in reruns", which is most decidedly what it did NOT do. it lived on through tape trading. its syndication record was all troubled because of the licensing issues. ok, i'm kinda skimming it (partly because a bunch of the pages are missing). she makes a lot about how the characters are all male, which, admittedly, is something i'd noticed too. i think her characterization of the staff as "male dominated" tends to marginalize the contribution of folks like bridget jones and beez mckeever. there were actually a fair number of writers and staff who were women, though calling it "male dominated" overall is probably basically fair. i have to be honest, her critique of colossal beast, that most of the lines they speak through carol make her look airheaded, feckless or otherwise dumb and incapable. i've noticed that before, and it bothers me a bit. on the other hand, they tend to make EVERYone dull, overbearing, airheaded, etc., because they have to make the show funny, and you do that by making fun of the characters, not by praising them. also, mulvey and the male gaze? can we move on from that, already? even in 1999 that was already pretty old. lol. i think she's way overpitching this idea that mst3k is designed to create an all-male environment and exclude women -- which, again, there IS an argument to be made there, i mean, jeez, look at the psycho homemaker skit from "design for dreaming"! the thing she misses is that mst3k actually does that in a very self-aware way, not the unironic way of, say, your typical bud light ad or 80s sex comedy. the design for dreaming skit is done in a way that seems to be ABOUT the male "treehouse" mentality, and there are lots of ways in which the hosts, particularly mike, overpitch their bachelorhood, their immaturity, their isolation from women. (think mike's cheese factory character in "time chasers.") but in real life, of course, mike's a charming, together family man, at least so far as i know, and nuveena's played, quite cleverly, by his WIFE. so it's a little hard to say M&tBs are actually telling men they shouldn't relate to women in that sketch. also, there's the very clever joel sketch about why 60s sitcoms always feature single fathers raising children alone. episode slips my mind. as i recall though this is really an instance of what the author is after, mst3k using its platform to theorize, examine gender roles, etc., all while being sorta self-aware of the way its own gender politics are skewed. to the extent there's anything funny about the single fathers skit, it's the joke that J&tBs are their own embodiment of that relationship, but they never have that moment of, hey! WE're like a single father raising kids alone! but if joel robinson isn't aware of that, joel hodgson is, which is why the sketch is written the way it is, and why that part's funny. i dunno, i also think she's glossing over women's roles in 50s and 60s sci-fi etc. way too much. she seems to see it as, women in the 50s were disempowered, like all they ever do is faint and wait for their man to save them. which, fair enough, happens pretty often (and still does, in movies today) but 50s sci fi often has quite strong female characters. cf. beverly garland, obviously, but also invaders from mars, the incredible shrinking man, beginning of the end, the crawling eye, 12 to the moon, rocketship x-m, etc. true, these movies also tend to have overbearing chauvinistic characters, but that's a bit of a different, though related, issue. i've always been particularly struck by rocketship x-m, how it shows this capable career woman struggling to negotiate this patronizing, but also plainly threatened, traditional male establishment (and what's worse, she's trapped on a rocket while doing so!), and that the movie itself very knowingly showing this struggle, and often seems to be expecting us to sympathize with the woman, particularly when she's dealing with the jerk senior scientist who questions her mathematical work based solely on her gender. i dunno, so i think her understanding of women's roles in 50s movies is a bit simplistic -- it's not so much that women were exclusively objectified or shown as victims so much as, when they WERE empowered, it was in somewhat stereotypical ways, like how the psychic in crawling eye is nonlinear, empathetic and intuitive, traditionally feminine roles, for instance. AND she's too simplistic about the "treehouse mentality" thing in mst3k. i mean, yes, there IS some of that element, but i also think the show is aware of that and interacts with it in its content. it's not some sort of simplistic male fantasy of a world without women, but it does seem to often be ABOUT that mentality, to use that mentality as a way of getting at other points or performing satire. all that said, i think a lot of her criticisms are genuine. the character of gypsy has always bothered me a bit, and the reasons why she explains quite nicely (she's presented as vapid and air-headed, and when we ask why, we learn it's because she's burdened with the domestic chores? yeah, i dunno, sorry...). i think the catcall riffs can be annoying ("paddle with your panties, or your breasts"? i mean come on, you can do better than that!), etc., etc. but by and large these are pretty venal sins. i think she could do a much more interesting and nuanced gender reading of mst3k if she weren't so focused on painting the show as purely sexist. it's not, but it does have elements that are, and i also think it has moments where it's very self-aware of the problems she talks about. (cf. crow's doc about the impossibility of finding a woman...) I do notice the stuff she gripes about is often balanced out, too.....like how J/M&TB boo when women are mistreated or their snarky reactions to obviously sexist scenes or dialogue or Joel's disgust over all the males in The Eye Creatures ('I'd like to apologize for the entire male gender, I'm sorry, thank you...')...so they're not complete neanderthals.
|
|
|
Post by continosbuckle on Mar 25, 2011 10:56:50 GMT -5
also, there's the very clever joel sketch about why 60s sitcoms always feature single fathers raising children alone. episode slips my mind. EE-GAH! Sorry, I do find your post interesting, but as I have to leave for work momentarily, this is all I can respond to at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by icecreambunny on Mar 26, 2011 13:18:48 GMT -5
Hey, don't be, that was a really great and thoughtful post that articulates all my own issues with that article, and issues with the show as well. It brought me out of lurkerdom and everything. It just shows you there are better and more detailed feminist critiques to make, without being too defensive.
|
|
|
Post by Jazzman99 on Mar 26, 2011 14:22:57 GMT -5
As one of the writers in this new book, I'd certainly be interested in comments/reviews from anyone who does get a copy. Just got mine in the mail today and I'm looking forward to seeing what the other writers did.
|
|
|
Post by Skyroniter on Apr 16, 2011 14:19:23 GMT -5
Got my copy in today.
|
|