In The Gender Politics of Magic Mike XXL, I believe the most solid assertion made was the observation that the movie went above and beyond by focusing on the men's dreams and aspirations instead of just being another conduit for sex appeal. Sophie Gilbert focused on this the most. She suggested that because the film has good character development, it not only helps push the movie forward but also appeal to the audience. The other two authors didn't touch on this as much even though it was about the movie as a whole. What I found most interesting was Sophie's center on the characters. The reason her evaluation of the film seems most solid is because she talked about the film's purpose, the film's characters, and the films audience all in one go. Connecting these three things gave me a bigger picture that led to one central assertion: the sexual objectification of men is satisfying for both women and men. I said before that there was a large focus on the men's dreams, and Sophie's point is that the objectification actually fulfilled those dreams while simultaneously fulfilling the desires of women. I cannot decide whether or not I agree with that, but the other two authors did not bother to go nearly so in depth, so Sophie seems to stand out with the most compelling stance on gender in this movie.
Spencer Kornhaber probably had the weakest and most stereotypical view on the film. Even though he set up the other two authors with topics, the personal view he had of the movie was neither enticing nor convincing. I thought it was cool how he pointed out that there was finally a movie that sexually appealed to women instead of men, but I was disappointed when the suggestion was made that it was backed by a feminist agenda. I have nothing against feminism, but I was honestly expecting a more creative evaluation of what Sophie has described as a quest of fulfillment for both women and men.
I completely agree with you that Sophie Gilbert has the strongest argument and I also love how she structures her argument around the characters and how the movie appeals to it audience. However, in your argument about Spencer Kornhaber having the weakest argument I disagree. I don’t think he comes off as being stereotypical as he mentions that the men have “utter lack of gay panic” he uses this referring to the fact that even though these guys are extremely macho, in life any guy like that would have a fear of being labeled as feminine but the men in the movie do it so freely. I think this section points out that as long as you are secure in your sexuality you should have the same free spirit and not have to worry about being labeled anything than what you are. I believe Kornhaber des a great job of pointing out that the men in this movie kind of reveres roles with women as the women in the movie did not feel “as human to me as the guys did” displaying that in society men normally don’t have any personality at all. I don’t necessarily like how he says that the movie appeals to other people other than straight men, but I can see where he’s coming from as a straight man, I applaud him for seeing the movie in itself.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, Sophie Gilbert had perhaps the most appreciation for the movies internal themes and commentaries. However all the commentators felt pretty spot on with their views. MMXXL is defintely a role swapping that is rarely if ever seen in Hollywood. Where most woman would be on screen taking their clothes off for men views, MMXXL is exactly the opposite. Now, men are being objectified for women's pleasure and no one really has a problem with it, ironically.
ReplyDeleteI actually believe that Kornhaber had a fairly solid view of the movie, despite what others might say. The analyzes the men very well, referring to their security in their own sexuality and whatnot. He thinks about exactly what a man would consider when viewing the movie, putting himself in their shoes and understand male objections.
I just want to put out there that I have never seen the movie, but after reading all of these blogs and comments I may have to. Yes, I agree with the statement that Sophie Gilbert hands down had the best interpretation of the movie and I say this because all of her thoughts and ideas seem balanced as opposed to targeting. Her comments may have been the only one that I didn't sort of cringe at while reading. Where I do disagree at is with who had the weakest argument and that in my opinion would have to be Megan Garber. I think she looked at things from a targeting against women stand of thing. "What I didn't love, however, was that a lot of these (relatively) progressive ideas manifested in MMXXL not just as What Women Want, but as What Women Want According to Dudes. Marriage! Being called “queens” and “goddesses”! Being danced for! Being grinded (ground?) upon! Being poetried about! Being sung to!" After she says this I'm left scratching my head in a sense, because I don't believe that the things she named are bad ,cruel, objectifying things. I think it is human nature for a woman to want to be babied and nurtured and spoiled so if the movie portrays that then I don't consider that offensive.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with you that Sophie Gilbert definitely had the best argument. It was refreshing to see a woman take such a relaxed and sort of care-free approach to a movie that can spark a lot of controversy. Sophie Gilbert made the great distinction between male and female strippers when she says, “because women are simply better at doing the objectifying—they can appreciate men as bodies and souls together rather than pieces of meat.” If there was a movie made about female strippers, the moods and emotions would be polar opposites from that of MMXXL. It would be safe to say that women strippers probably feel violated or like pieces of meat being on stage, but that’s what they feel they have to do to make a living. Men in MMXXL, on the other hand, put on these elaborate routines and costumes to make the woman the center of attention and fulfill her fantasies and desires while making good money at the same time.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I must disagree with you and say that Megan Garber had the weakest point of the three authors. Megan Garber closes her argument with, “In that sense, and in the best sense, MMXXL is itself just one big, ridiculous, and really fun strip show.” I feel that Garber is missing a lot and not focusing on some of the underlying problems and backstories that some of these actors in the movie faced. I feel like she didn’t appreciate the movie as a whole and only saw the obvious point; a movie about male strippers.
I have to agree with you that the first author, Spencer Kornhaber definitely had the weakest and most stereotypical view out of all the authors of the movie, although unlike you I really enjoyed reading Megan Garber’s article a lot more than Sophie Gilberts. I really feel like Garber hit some different views that Gilbert didn’t and had some very interesting things to say about how the movie moved away from the normal stereotypical views that most male movies have, and also some ways at looking how the movie although was progressive still had some stereotypical ways at looking at men and women particularly in the way they portrayed “what all women want”. Garber made the point that although the movie had feministic ideals, because it was written by two males it still had a lot of aspects of masculinity “It’s telling, I think, that the screenplay of MMXXL was written by Tatum and Reid Carolin (the screenwriter for the first Magic Mike); the whole thing, despite its many (many, many) feministic delights, also has a whiff of mansplaining to it.” In my opinion the article that Garber wrote was better than Gilberts because it offered a more feministic approach and insight than Gilberts did.
ReplyDeleteI also have never seen this movie, but after reading all the different inputs on it, I feel like I have enough information about it. I completely agree that Sophie Gilbert had the most solid argument. She had a lot of examples to prove her arguments. I also liked Sophie's view on the movie because she focused on many different points. Sophie says "it’s pretty refreshing to have a movie that’s so seemingly free of nuance. There are bros. The bros take their clothes off. This time, however, they seem truly happy to be doing so, and in fact, generally affirmed by both the female attention and the opportunity to make women feel like, yes, queens." I liked that statement because its good for men and women. The men enjoy what they do, they are happy, and the women of course appreciate the strippers, and being treated like "queens", its a win-win.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that Spencer had the weakest argument, I believe it was Megan Garber. I like when Spencer mentions the "utter lack of gay panic" and when "they stop in at a drag show and start vogue-ing on stage, having as much fun as anyone at a Pride parade." Im glad he pointed that out, because its good when guys are comfortable with their sexuality. Most of the guys I know won't even get a pedicure because "its too feminine". It's ridiculous. On the other hand, Megan Garber's argument felt like she didn't really look to deep into the movie, and she felt like women were kind of being targeted, which I don't think they were trying to do at all.