What’s the difference between Sex and The City 2 and Michael Winterbottom’s latest film, The Killer Inside Me? Well, one’s about four women who like to talk about sex and shopping and the other one is about a man who kills women.
Now, which film do you think these critics are talking about?
‘The most insulting and dangerous film for women since Pretty Woman.’ Limara Salt, Little White Lies
‘A hellish, embarrassing abomination.’ Bob Grimm, Tuscon Weekly
‘It’s an obscenity.’ Robert Levin, Critic’s Notebook
‘Lock them all up and throw away the key.’ Tom Ryan, The Age
And the now notorious opening gambit from Roger Ebert: ‘Some of these people make my skin crawl.’
Of course, they’re talking about the one where four women go shopping and make some terrible jokes. Not the one where we are shown a woman being repeatedly punched in the face until you hear the bones crunch.
Yes, I know there’s an argument here about artistic merit, but The Killer Inside Me isn’t getting that many five-star reviews. It’s got an average of 5.7 out of 10 on Rotten Tomatoes. So it’s not like comparing Nil By Mouth or Once Upon A Time In America to Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason.
So, why all this vitriol against what could be considered the much less offensive film? (Yes, I know that Sex And the City has been accused of casual racism. But in The Killer Inside Me, Kate Hudson is filmed urinating all over the floor as she dies.) I’m disappointed that the Sex and The City films haven’t lived up to the promise of the TV series, but I was shocked at the anger and hatred against the four actresses I read in online comments and reviews from professional critics. There’s something about four women in their forties and fifties discussing sex and relationships that seems to have brought out the worst urges in otherwise rational people. Is it because they’re being held up as models of our society, while Casey Affleck is meant to be a loner? Perhaps.
If you think it’s because The Killer Inside Me is meant to be a well-intentioned look at violence, that doesn’t fly. In fact, in some ways I think it makes the film’s bad reviews more offensive. For example, there’s a scene (SPOILER) in which Affleck douses his house in petrol, then invites the police in. The moment one of them pulls out a gun and fires, the whole house will go up. Strangely, though, no one notices the smell of petrol. In another scene, when Affleck tries to frame a dead man for beating a woman to death, he leaves him with unblemished knuckles — and no one says a thing (SPOILER again, but I don’t think you should pay to see it, so there). So, here’s a film where the director argues it was important to show graphic violence, but in other places has been so careless with minor plot details the effect is totally ruined. At least Sex And The City director Michael Patrick King is unapologetically unrealistic (have you noticed, by the way, how King isn’t coming in for much of the flack?)
I know a lot of women who were mocked by their partners for wanting to see SATC2 (and again, if you read some of the online comments, they’re treated to some fairly loathsome derision…). I know which one I find more offensive.
Comments