Someone liked Coraline less than I did
Mar. 23rd, 2009 09:02 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
essentialsaltesViolence: Moderate / Profanity: None / Sex/Nudity: Heavy
Christian Spotlight on Entertainment
I'm quite impressed that the reviewer seems to have spent some quality time with the book, but there's still plenty to scratch one's head about in the review. My favorite is the way that the reviewer and most of the commenters have some issues with the quasi-female form:
Gaiman’s book sexualizes the relationship between Miss Pink and Miss Forcible and shows them in relatively modest circus outfits. However, Henry Selick extends that content and portrays a naked Miss Forcible as a strip dancer wearing a sequined thong and stripper's pasties on impossibly huge breasts. The children in the audience cried out their disgust in tones of amusement and surprise, as if to say, “So that’s what they look like without any clothes!” It is a deeply misogynistic image which will elicit disgust in any Christian viewer, regardless of age.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect the image was not supposed to be tittilating, but 'gross.' It appears to have achieved its result with the audience.
But the whole film is clearly just a big advertisement for atheistic lifestyles, for in the real world... dad cooks, while in the mirror world... pseudomom cooks.
Christian Spotlight on Entertainment
I'm quite impressed that the reviewer seems to have spent some quality time with the book, but there's still plenty to scratch one's head about in the review. My favorite is the way that the reviewer and most of the commenters have some issues with the quasi-female form:
Gaiman’s book sexualizes the relationship between Miss Pink and Miss Forcible and shows them in relatively modest circus outfits. However, Henry Selick extends that content and portrays a naked Miss Forcible as a strip dancer wearing a sequined thong and stripper's pasties on impossibly huge breasts. The children in the audience cried out their disgust in tones of amusement and surprise, as if to say, “So that’s what they look like without any clothes!” It is a deeply misogynistic image which will elicit disgust in any Christian viewer, regardless of age.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect the image was not supposed to be tittilating, but 'gross.' It appears to have achieved its result with the audience.
But the whole film is clearly just a big advertisement for atheistic lifestyles, for in the real world... dad cooks, while in the mirror world... pseudomom cooks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-24 02:42 am (UTC)The speech is clearly a slam at the kind of home where mothers cook and fathers work and parents speak of “sin” and “sinner” and “mercy” and “justice.” It is the kind of home that atheists imagine Christians live in: a Stepford Family reality of puppet people with no creativity or individuality.
The two sentences don't really connect, but reading between them I see the writer trying not to mention hypocritical Christian parents. Considering there are so many it's not hard to see why atheists might assume that Stepfordian value in many families. Maybe, just maybe, pedantic speeches on sin and mercy are at odds with emotional abuse.