Sunday, September 19

[gottawonder]

Today I am grateful for:

Waking up to all the kitties on the bed, with no drama. How nice!

I pulled more beets. I cooked them and bagged them and froze them. I suspect we will have a LOT more beets than we need this year, but that's okay. I'll give some away.

I went to see River, and R was working with other horses too. I did elements of the new lead line pattern, and River did well enough for now, so I didn't belabor it. We practiced/rode outside, and by the end it was pretty dark, with the full moon rising. Kind of interesting.

I came home and watched "'Ammonite", which is an interesting enough movie, but here's the thing; it's central story is a lesbian relationship. The movie is mainly about the life of a real person though (fossil hunter Mary Anning), who never had a lesbian relationship as far as anyone ever mentioned or knew of. She just wasn't married or had male lovers. It bothers me to learn this after watching the movie, because this was a REAL person. If they wanted to do a movie about her life, then why not just make a movie about what is known? The sex scenes were pretty damn graphic, and ended up uncomfortably so. I couldn't think of a reason for a sex scene that graphic, even if they really were lovers, except just for the shock value and the cachet of it being about lesbians done in a "realistic" fashion with pit hair and everything.

Some people are going to say this movie is feminist because of the way the women's relationship is portrayed, but I feel that this is an exploitative movie that is assuming a lot about a person's life. Why couldn't it be possible for a woman just not to be in a relationship for her own reasons? Is it less interesting to do a movie of a woman's life if there's no sex in it? This seems like a familiar thing too, doesn't it? If a woman isn't in a relationship with a man, she HAS to be a lesbian, right?

The two women in the film were both real people. They were both fossil hunters/paleontologists, and the story in real life is that Charlotte Murchison did indeed live with Mary for a time, to learn about fossils. The movie sexualized that relationship, based on what? Again, why couldn't two women both interested in fossils simply be friends, and why is that too boring for a movie?

I've almost gotten to the point of not watching films about real people anymore, because inevitably some director thinks that person's life story would be more interesting if they put in a bunch of stuff that never happened, or changed the sequence of events, or what have you because it makes a more interesting film. What is the point of learning about someone's life if it isn't trying to be accurate?