MovieChat Forums > Cashback (2006) Discussion > chauvanism disguised as sensitivity

chauvanism disguised as sensitivity

posted 15 years ago by yuomi
26 replies | jump to latest

disuss.

Americans traditionally love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.

[–] jmr_monkey 15 years ago

When you watch the movie over, you would see that even though there is tons of female nudity, neither Sharon nor Suzy (both his love interests) showed any nudity. Obviously because the movie wanted to show the audience that even though he loves to draw the female body, he not once objectified the women he was with. The most likely reason was because he loved them, and saw the real beauty that they had all around them. He didn't know the women he drew, so he couldn't feel any affection towards them, which just ended up him admiring their bodies beauty, unlike Sharon and Suzy. I don't think it was chauvanism disguised as sensitivity, because truth be told if you don't know somebody, you're obviously only objectifying what they look like, which in my opinion is an extremely common thing to do.

[–] kcolli11 12 years ago

So he only objectifies women he knows nothing about! That's great!

I thought the grocery store antics - freezing time, undressing the women, drawing them - smacked too much like sexual assault. This guy is not sensitive. He's a pervert who is using this time stopping ability to undress women without their knowledge or consent. It's sickening.

[–] DeclanCochran 12 years ago

Ask any man if they've ever imagined a woman naked, any normal man over the age of 20. They'll most likely answer yes. Why is that? Because it's human nature. What is the difference between that and what is shown in this film? Nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A man who does not spend time with his family can never be a real man."

[–] jamie_windsor 15 years ago

Here is my review of Cashback:

When I first saw the short, I wondered if it was a subtle political statement about dominant/passive relationship of post-modern patriarchal culture in pseudo-academic circles. My optimism soon dispersed.

Some argue that the protagonist is flawed as most people are, but he is presented as the hero and not as a flawed character. I would guess he is a projection of the filmmaker's own view of women.

He fixates on a shallow view of "beauty" represented in what appears to be fashion-model happy hour at the local supermarket — classic lad's mag fodder. As if this wasn't enough, we are taken into his fantasy world where he undresses (I say "undresses" — what actually happens is he pulls up their tops and down their underwear to reveal breasts and genitals) these women in secret and without consent. He furthers this by becoming obsessed with the checkout girl whom he then proceed to secretly draw in various states of undress and then exhibits the picture (again, without her consent) in a public exhibition. In any normal scenario, we would label this character a sex-offender but apparently this is all hopelessly deep and romantic.

We have a short section with a nude man in a life class, but this is ridiculed as the man keeps passing wind (yes — this is the level of sophistication this film offers). Our protagonist instead draws the stereotypically "lad's-mag" attractive girl across the room.

Beyond all the sexism, the film is badly made. The characters are one-dimensional and the script is disjointed. There's some nice cinemtography but that's about all I can say in its favour.

This film is an appalling piece of cinema that reinforces the outdated and sexist notion that women are primarily about body and that beauty is defined by nubile, young women in states of undress.

[–] southpaw734 15 years ago

I wondered if it was a subtle political statement about dominant/passive relationship of post-modern patriarchal culture in pseudo-academic circles.

[–] jamie_windsor 15 years ago

You have a strange sense of humour.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamie_windsor 15 years ago

It's amazing the amount of people one comes across who live by the attitude of: "if I don't understand it, it doesn't exist".

[–] washcloud 15 years ago

...It's also amazing the people one comes accross who live by the attitude of "u can deviate and distort anything to fit your own stupid perception of the world".
Thankfully, the amount is not that high.

[–] jamie_windsor 15 years ago

They're called "creationists"

[–] washcloud 15 years ago

And people like you are called...Nah. You know how. No need to call names.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] washcloud 15 years ago

You supposition was wrong.
It simply is a matter of (Internet) STYLE, CONVENIENCE, and quite frankly of profound, dedicated and self-indulging LAZINESS choice.
For example, "S-C-R-E-W Y-O-U" <-- see in this sentence? No difficulty whatsoever to spell it right for U

[–] johnslegers 13 years ago

It's amazing the amount of people one comes across who live by the attitude of: "if I don't understand it, I'll just look up what '60s Marxists had to say and defend their misguided nonsense with vigor". Feminists of your ilk are a great and hopelessly anachronistic example.

[–] tom_grainger88 13 years ago

Ok i found the poster maybe a lil too serious, dont really feel the need to over analyse everything myself, especially low budget movies, even if they try to give the impression of being arthouse, they are still just low budget cinema for the most part. But marxist? Where does that come from? Youve said it twice that ive seen so far and seems to be kind of swinging for the ropes. There are no conservative feminists in the business world? No ceo's who believe whole heartedly in capitalist doctrine who also dont appreciate being slapped on the behind and told to keep up the good work doll face. Seems like your kind of going down that whole J. Edgar Hoover, the darkies should be glad of their place, civil rights is just a front for the red menace, anyone who says the word racist or asks for equal treatment is a communist sympathiser and traitor to the great white race kind of route. Arent we kind of a few decades past the hysterical belief that theres no room for gender or race equality in a modern democracy out of fear of letting in the big bad soviets. I know im bringing a gun to a knife fight and kind of getting carried away, just seemed so really out of place to start crying red devil in a discussion where theres been no mention of anything even socialist let alone marxist. Do you think you might have read a lil too deep into things yourself, and isnt that what your telling the other poster not to do? Or maybe misunderstood feminism as being just some loony left wing cry baby tactic, instead of something far more complex and cross spectrum? There are plenty of conservative, christian fundamentalists who still believe in creationism as fact that believe in feminism and respect for women, are they somehow marxist?

[–] Jehovah42 14 years ago

Dear Jamie,
I genuinely don't say this to cause offense, but your review illustrates two well known phenomena pretty well: the less than confident academic's inclination to use needlessly complex language to disguise a lack of critical thought, and the fact that reviews have a tendancy to reveal very little about the reviewed and a great deal about the reviewer.
To take you points in order:
There is no contradiction between heroic and flawed. Ben is, quite clearly, deeply flawed. The viewer (generally) roots for him more though empathy with his imperfections and heartache than admiration of his heroism. This is not a James Bond film.
You've confused two models of beauty here. The "fashion model" and "lad's mag fodder". One is an ideal of the fashion business, i.e. put forward mainly by women and gay men, the other is an ideal of the men's magazine business, i.e. much more reflective of what a large number of straight men like. You, like many others, use the term "shallow" to describe anyone who takes pleasure from looking at either of these categories of women. Why? I've never heard this actually explained. Does fancying chubby women make you deeper? It may interest you to know that the offending scenes actually did, in an earlier edit, feature a broader range of body types. The film was test screened extensively, with mainly female audiences, as the makers (the producer being a woman) were aware that they were walking a fine line between eroticism and, well, creepiness. The overwhelming majority of the women in the test audiences found Ben charming rather than pervy and the shots of 'curvier' ladies were met with sniggers, which is very much not the audience response being solicited by the scene, so out they went; democracy in action.
No one involved in the making of this movie ever claimed it was "deep".
The life drawing class: 1. You've never laughed at someone farting? 2. You find something wrong with the conceit that a 20 year old boy would rather draw a pretty girl than an old man?
You then go on to just come right out and say the word, "sexism". This is indicative of a very common but utterly unfounded assumption; that to celebrate someone's physical beauty is to implicity suggest that they don't really have anything else going for them. The many (all very beautiful, but ranging in interests and intelligence as much as any other group) models who featured in this film, without coercion, and were absolutely equal members of the team, would most certainly disagree.
This film is far from perfect. In fact one sentence you used was pretty fair, if a little unqualified:

"The characters are one-dimensional and the script is disjointed."

Fair enough. It was the writer/director's first feature film and the lead actor's first leading role in a feature film and in some ways these things show. One thing it is definitely not, however, is sexist.

(Apologies for any spelling/grammatical errors. My typing is appalling)

[–] SonnyCarson 14 years ago

thank you!

"A great movie is one in which truth and spectacle are gracefully blended."

[–] lucyjad 11 years ago

There are issues of consent which need to be considered, regardless of your reaction to Jamie's post. I think it's lazy when posters have said "oh, but it's fantasy, men are allowed to fantasise". Of course men are allowed to fantasise, just as women do, and, as it seems to have not been mentioned, women enjoy fantasising about other women too. BUT this film blurs the lines between fantasy and reality. I can forgive his obsession with the female form, yes, it has sexuality running through it, but he is also an artist and so it can be relatively justified. But what is troubling is the way in which the film deals with consent, fantasising about the sexual abuse of women is still worthy of censure, IMHO, but as I've mentioned that line is blurry enough already. Whilst so many women are sexually assaulted in reality I don't think the off-hand attitude displayed by so many posters is justified. Our society needs a big conversation about consent, this film turns the absence of it into something aesthetically pleasing, and I don't think it's fair to treat those who oppose that as if they are uptight prudes. I have friends who are sex workers, I enjoy looking at naked women, I'm not a prude, but there are problematic issues with consent in this film that it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss.

[–] johnslegers 13 years ago

* ) The protagonist is portrayed as a flawed but also likable and sensitive young man. There are no heroes in this film. This is not an action film.

* ) The protagonist is not just a projection of the filmmaker's own view of women, but that of the view of male intellectuals in general. This is the way educated men think and feel about women and I don't see anything disrespectful in that perspective.

* ) All straight men fantasize about naked or half-naked women. Get over it. The only men who don't are either asexual or homosexual and homosexuals fantasize about naked or half-naked men instead.

* ) When a model farts in a life class, people laugh. It's not a matter of bad taste, it's a matter of people laughing with awkward situations.

* ) The characters are charicatures in the sense that they represent different types of men. Most men will probably be able to classify all other men they ever knew in any of the categories the men in this film represented and that makes them far more than just the one-dimensional cut-outs you imply they are. They are in the movie to give a complete image of how different kinds of men view women rather than just giving the perspective of one individual.

* ) I watched this film with my girlfriend (who has a doctorate in bio-engineering and has done very prominent research in that area) as well as a lesbian couple. Neither felt offended, neither considered the film remotely sexist. Neither got the impression this film "reinforces the outdated and sexist notion that women are primarily about body" as you claim it did. You should really stop attaching your own Marxist bias to movies and see them for what they really are.

[–] jamie_windsor 13 years ago

Why do people keep explaining the plot to me? I understand what happens in the film, I just find it misogynistic.

It's nice that your friends liked it but I fail to how being a lesbian or having a doctorate in bio-engineering helps you to understand feminist theory. I'm sure you could find a few feminists who thought it was great too.

[–] Moviac 13 years ago

Jamie,

Good thread.

I just found this film about half an hour ago on Netflix, never having heard of it before, and the synopsis made it sound like an interesting light sci-fi thing about pausing time. And sure, I can admit that it was also appealing to my maleness to hear about the undressing thing and to see the cover preview. I have nothing against sexuality or nudity.

However, once I actually began watching the film I couldn't avoid feeling that it was just sort of bad. Very, very full of itself, it seemed to convey an impression on the part of those who made it that it was much more intellectual, deep, meaningful, touching, poetic... whatever, than it actually was. Another example of this I can recall, although vaguely, was the film Magnolia. I thought it was miserable, and part of what made it miserable for me was how impressed with itself it was.

Same thing here, as I watched I was just sort of dumbfounded at how they had managed to convince themselves that it was deserving of the kind of reverence they were treating it with.

In the end it made me feel a lot like billboards or other advertisements I see where they use beautiful models to promote products that have no logical connection to that.

I may be a heterosexual male, and sure it may indeed be possible to trigger that "ohhh hot lady" response in me, but it is also possible to make me feel as though my intelligence has been insulted and if you're too obvious about trying to trigger those primal responses, I am going to become all too aware of what's being done and reject it. That's what happened here.

It's a shame so many other responders to your thread were so dismissive and venomous but I guess that's the internet for you.

[–] jamie_windsor 13 years ago

Thanks for your reply.

It's weird when you write a quick review of a film on a discussion forum and years later you keep getting emails notifying you of the latest insulting or aggressive comment in reply. I was preparing myself for more abuse but was pleasantly surprised to read a polite and intelligent comment from another heterosexual male who actually agreed with me. You've made my day.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (32667257) 13 years ago

Jamie,

I noticed you failed to address the Jehova fellow's thorough response. His was the most intelligent, balanced, and well-articulated reply on here.

Also, his was the one that shot your arguments completely into the ground.

Funny how you chose not to respond to him. Care to now?

[–] Implying 13 years ago

>what actually happens is he pulls up their tops and down their underwear to reveal breasts and genitals) these women in secret and without consent.

It's not illegal to imagine undressing someone, you stupid piece of garbage. I can imagine right now throttling you and feeding you to my dog, does that mean I'm indictable for murder? Jesus *beep* Christ you're insane. Do I have to get someone's consent before thinking about them?

It's also not illegal to draw people, or to display drawings done by hand in public. Considering that they were all from his imagination, too. Were you watching the movie? I hope you realise that the 'frozen time' sequences were metaphorical and in no way real life.

>In any normal scenario, we would label this character a sex-offender

A logical conclusion by a feminist with a victim complex so inherent that she can't handle the fact that people are out there having fun, whilst you just brood over your computer wishing you weren't so ugly and unloveable.

Feminism: imagining *beep* and drawing it makes you a sex offender

[–] johnslegers 13 years ago

I would describe this film as "male sensitivity all in the open". I don't see any chauvinism at all but I do notice an apparent unability of some women to recognise the feelings and thoughts of the main character is what male sensitivity amounts to...

[–] gillies 13 years ago

If you guys would have watched the movie carefully, there is really only one (ok, 4) scenes with nudity, the first scene is where he undresses all the women in the grocery store aisle to show his imagined ability to stop time (HEY GUESS WHAT ITS A FANTASY SCENE IT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN OK ??)... and isn't that what ANY ~22 year old male would do if they developed such a gift? Gimme a break, they would !!! Anyway, after that initial one-time scene, there are 2 other brief scenes (swedish roommate and stripper). Those scenes just show the balance of how women tease men with their bodies.

Now, did there have to be a stripper later in the movie to complete the plot? Did they have to go SEE a stripper to HIRE the stripper? Probably not essential to the script, but at least they ended that sequence with a joke.

Whether women acknowledge it or not, they tease men all the time with the way they dress and parade around, even in very domestic locations like a grocery store, often in outlandish clothing for such a venue. And whether men acknowledge it or not, they subconsciously undress certain women when they look at them, they cannot help it as their imaginations run wild.

What I can't stand is all these pretentious men and women on this board that piss on this movie because they claim its all gratuitous nudity when in reality these sorts of things are happening every sixty seconds in every grocery store on earth!

And what's worse, if you paid attention to the script for this movie (or just browse the quotes section on IMDB), you'd see that the writing in this movie is about 3 notches higher than the average narrative in what passes for a movie (mostly garbage) put out by hollywood today.