Girls with Bows and Arrows are the New It Thing in Cinematic Fetish

Poster for Catching Fire (2013) 'More pouting Jennifer!'

I guess it all started a few years back when Keira Knightly was on every billboard dressed in little but leather straps standing next to Clive Owen who's wielding a giant sword in promo's for the awfully executed King Arthur (2004). They had the audacity to fuck with Arturian legend so much that they made Guinevere a leather-clad pouty lipped borderline porn star who shoots to kill with her rickety bow and arrow. 

Basically this suggests that women when put into ancient fighting situations can't do much in terms of strength, as in they're not good with a sword, ball and chain, or any medieval weaponry but damn it are they accurate at shooting a bow and arrow, that's how them bitches defend themselves. Is this a feminist concept or is it pandering? Probably the latter, because I've taken archery courses (Jew camp, 1996) and I sucked at it, it's way harder than it looks people. But apparently all a girl's got to do is work up some estrogen courage, breath in and release (no pun intended) she'll hit her mark every time. Right in the perp's heart where the arrow belongs. Take that fake vikings. 

promo still for King Arthur (2004) Look familiar?

Right now of course the huge deal is Jennifer Lawrence as the 'good at hunting' Katniss Everdeen, and driving past a billboard for Catching Fire (2013) this morning I couldn't help but notice that she's angled in almost the exact same way as Keira was, with her hair blowing in the wind, and her airbrushed face focused on whatever she's aiming at, and for some reason, even though we all know that the tributes of the hunger games wear plenty of clothes to protect themselves and keep themselves warm while they try to you know not get killed, she's barely wearing anything. Mulvey would have a field day with this. It is the utmost in visual pleasure and castration theory, for all you know boys, she could be pointing that thing right at your balls. And watch out then because Katniss never misses her mark. 

Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel in the upcoming Hobbit film. She does not look awesome.

And what do we have coming up next? The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) where a new character is introduced as a love interest for Legolas (the archer elf) who let's face it might as well be a girl. But no, it's Kate Austen I mean...Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel another goddamn archer elf. I mean, do elves do anything else? Or is it like a rule they made up in MiddleEarth; Dwarves only get axes, humans use swords, hobbits get comically tiny swords that glow in the dark, and elves get the gayest attire ever complete with a bow and arrow. 

Behind the scenes of Catching Fire (2013) I do believe Jennifer's bow has gotten bigger. It's like when you're given a bigger gun to use in the sequel than you had in the original. I remember the late great Steve McQueen used to complain about that on the set of The Magnificent Seven (1960) saying that Yul Brynner's gun was bigger than his and he wanted something done about it. Nothing ever was.

Why is it that women get to defend themselves only with bows and arrows, is it because it's the ancient version of a gun which is really sexy for a woman to know how to use. But it's usually in the sense that 'awww how cute, she knows how to aim and shoot a gun...ouch!' Or have we given too many guns to women in films of late. I mean, in The Heat (2013) Sandra Bullock literally shoots a man (Taran Killam) in the dick. Did I just give the movie away, sorry about that (not). So now we need something more subdued, something sexier, and just as deadly. Nun chucks and throwing stars are clearly out because they have a nerd derivative, and women need something elegant and yet sexy, also we all know that woman have terrible arm thrust capacity so swords are out as well, but we all know women are smart and can concentrate so a bow and  arrow seem perfectly logical, makes them less passive and gives them something to do, but while we're at it, let's dress them in half of what they should be wearing and give them long wavy hair. It's a new cinematic symbol, and trust me, it won't be long until Tarantino works this into one of his films, even though it's going to be completely anachronistic and thereby won't make any sense, but let's face it, what DOES make sense in a Tarantino film. If Zero Dark Thirty (2012) wasn't directed by a woman, I'm sure Jessica Chastain would have been walking the halls of the CIA with one. Ok that might be too unbelievable a conjecture, but you can't deny the fact that a bow and arrow adds to a woman's hottness factor these days. It's a recent trend but it looks like it will be around for a while. Gives totally new meaning to the term 'sex as a weapon' doesn't it?

Trailers below and some Zizek for you Film Studies buffs out there: 

The Unthinkable Has Happened: I Was Wrong About Something

Keira Knightly and Aaron Taylor-Johnson fall in love against a surreal backdrop in Anna Karenina (2011)

Last year in July I wrote about my expectations for the soon to be released Anna Karenina (2011) directed by the renowned Joe Wright who's obsession with Keira Knightley knows no bounds. I said that as a Russian, who was made to read Anna Karenina as if it was gospel, I couldn't bare the thought of a theatrical shit show with her and Aaron Taylor-Johnson as the two principal leads.

Well I'm watching it today, and I have to say with utmost disgrace to myself and my intuition, that I was wrong, which I never am people. 

I was literally taken aback at how good this movie looked and felt.

But this was such an interesting take on the famous story and the writing was actually up to par with a 1 1/2 hour adaptation of a 600 page novel by Tolstoy, that's saying the obvious considering the adaptation was written by Tom Stoppard. Yes it was sappy, and missed a lot of the books subtext and essential themes, but it got the jist as best as it could, and for something so highly unadaptable as that book, that's a job well done. I think perhaps maybe I understood the script better (which had it's absurd moments) because I can recite the book verbatim. 

Alicia Vikander as Princess Katerina 'Kitty' Alexandrovna

What I was impressed most about was the supporting players. I loved Matthew McFayden as Stiva, and Alicia Vikander (keep an eye on her, she's going to be the next it-girl, mark my words) as Kitty, and of course Jude Law as the torn and embarrassed Karenin, he's absolutely brilliant and I have no idea who's genius idea it was to cast him because I think he understands the material better than anyone else. In most other adaptations Karenin is seen as the villain; the heartless brute who can't forgive and cares only about his own honor and his promises to god, but Law plays him so layered and enigmatic that you get a real sense he understands that Tolstoy wrote every character in Anna Karenina to be tortured and trapped by their own inabilities to compromise. 

My favorite adaptation remains the Vivien Leigh/Ralph Richardson one from 1948. There's a woman that could play Anna Karenina. Criterion bought it and it's on Hulu.

I'm really starting to sound like a substitute teacher at Russian Lit 101, so I'll finish by commenting on the aesthetic. I heard that the film was done in a strangely theatrical way because they literally didn't have the money to make it a full fledged film shot on location and with meticulous attention to detail to recreate Imperial Russia. And instead of half-assing it, Joe Wright decided to take a different route, making it more of a ballet (another Russian staple) and mostly symbolic, like a fairy tale, which is essentially what Anna Karenina is; an adult fairy tale. It's supposed to be dramatic, whimsical, magical and somewhere beyond this practical world, and I think the aesthetic used captures that. All I will say that I was right about was that yeah, Keira Knightly and Aaron Taylor Johnson do not do justice to the two main characters, too young to have a grasp of the gravity of the roles their playing, and it just sucks plain and simple.

Trailer below. 

Vivien Leigh as Anna Karenina (1948) 

Seductress Pick: Abbie Cornish

Cornish in Somersault (2004)

Only once in a great while does an actress come around that completely challenges the landscape of performance in cinema in that time. And just as Barbara Stanwyck or Glenda Jackson or Catherine Deneuve did in their generations, Abbie Cornish is accomplishing currently as a consummate professional and master of her craft. For all of the Kristen Stewarts, Keira Knightleys, and Mila Kunises of our generation there is quietly creeping up behind them a marvelous force that refines the idea of being a female on screen with great finesse and utmost integrity. 

Cornish in great confluence with her co-star Heath Leger in Candy (2008)

Even though her salary is probably not close to half of what any of the aforementioned actresses tally, her legacy is what's really going to pay off in the end. I knew that Abbie Cornish was unique from maybe the first 5 minutes that I saw her on screen, and I mean really unique not just 'oh that's a new kind of sexy'. What Abbie maintains is a complete understanding of femininity which includes the struggle and irreverent power that comes with that. This is really what separates the actors from the 'stars' and what creates actual longevity in this business. Now, I'm not saying that stars can't be serious actors, nor am I using the term 'serious actors' in a pretentious, annoying, Yale drama school/Addison DeWitt kind of way. Cornish's performance reminds me of Gena Rowlands who is arguably the best actress in the English language, and also at the same time is completely reminiscent of someone like Liv Ullman. There's a quiet consciousness that is always self-aware and self-reflexive, and it's not just because she gets to play roles along those lines. Even when Cornish was in garbage like Stop-Loss (2008) she allowed for her vulnerability to carry the bullshit lines she was forced to say. Where the filmmakers had failed to give her character any compelling characteristics or even an arc, she was able to connect the dots and create a cohesive and endearing performance even though she was a supporting player. 

Cornish as the paragon Fanny Brawne, whom she played to nuanced perfection in Jane Campion's Bright Star (2009). Photographed in period costume she reminds one of Liv Ullman in Ingmar Bergman's Cries and Whispers (1972)

The way she carries herself boasts that she is all at once completely confident and yet spontaneous, sensitive to what any new situation or project could bring, which gives off the impression that she's fearless, and if you look at her CV, that's basically what she is. Everyone in this business has to do crap to pay the bills here and there, we can't all stick to Jane Campion films. Even Holly Hunter had to make A Life Less Ordinary (1998). Cornish is certainly not above that, no one is. But then she makes films like Bright Star (2009) or better yet she starts out with a bang in an unforgiving and devastating film like Somersault (2004). 

Still from Somersault (2004) with Sam Worthington.

Somersault is easily the best film of that year, and the character Cornish plays is beyond memorable. Ironically, it's a character we've seen over and over and over again; a troubled teenager who runs away from home and slowly self-destructs from excessive drugs, sex, and alcohol eventually leading to a bittersweet redemption of sorts. And yet it's totally new and vital when Cornish plays this character and that's a gift very few people that young have. She plays a 16 year old with the mentality of a 35 year old, while herself only being 20. She understands what sexuality actually stands for from a feminine gaze in the cinema and instead of exploiting it or making it ironic by turning it into melodrama (I'm talking to you, Keira) she quietly guides you through her own journey of self-discovery and by the end of it, you walk out convinced. I was, and I know she's a home wrecker and everything, but as long as she keeps pushing out performances like she has been, it doesn't matter a bit to me.

Below some trailers to help illustrate my point. 

Keira Knightley Butchers Yet Another Literary Classic

Is this the scene where she has an orgasm while fully clothed? Ahhh yes, I remember how Tolstoy wrote about it fondly.

You might guess that I'm pretty biased when it comes to adapting Russian literature for the screen which is almost always impossible to do, and especially when it takes place in the city I was born in, St. Petersburg. But nothing has yet been quite such a slap in the face until the new Anna Karenina (2012) trailer hit and I thought, 'wow, it's like Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette (2005) had sex with Across the Universe (2007) and had an abortion all over my face.

Let's start at the beginning because my list of grievances goes on forever so I'm going to try to make this as brief as I can. It's difficult for me to see anyone in the west adapt Russian literature, particularly one of the greatest books in Russian history because Russians like to write really really long books. 'Anna Karenina' is 8 volumes; each volume about 300 pages. So um...a 2-hour movie is just not going to cut it. Check that box, now moving on to the anorexic elephant in the room. 

Baroness Varvara Ivanovna Ikskul von Hildenbandt , whom it is said Anna Karenina is based on. Clearly there's a resemblance...not.

If there is an actress I despise more than Kristen Stewart, it's Keira Knightly. To me, everything she does is wrong and somehow cringe-worthy, to the point where it seems beyond ridiculous to even conceive of men killing each other to be with her. She always has that confused blow-fish look and I'm tired of counting the ribs in her mid-section. The director is Joe Wright, who is more or less obsessed with Keira, much like John Hughes was unhealthily enamored with Molly Ringwald. At some point you have to read the book and seriously consider who would be right for the part and who would stick out like sore ditz. No way does Keira have the psychological depth to play a tragic heroine on par with Anna Karenina, I wouldn't even cast her as Sophie. She needs to get her bony ass back to RADA and work on that Russian accent for a few more decades. 

I think this dress is from the Vera Wang bridal collection from last year. Also, not very excited about Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Vronsky. Please.

Speaking of, why is it she'll put on a Russian accent (and not a very good one) for the Cronenberg film, but for this one (where it really matters) eh...she'll just use her natural speaking voice. Bitch please. Every time she speaks in the trailer I'm sitting there thinking...yeah not buying it, and aren't you late for cheerleading practice? Just because you throw the prom queen into a period costume, doesn't mean she's going to pull it off, and even if she does, on behalf of my people I can say right now before the film is even released, we're not on board. 

Side note, please stop trying to squeeze Keira Knightly into corsets. Has she been in a film that doesn't require them since Bend it Like Beckham (2002)? (and aside from Atonement (2006)?) She's comically too thin for them. I think it's an aesthetic choice so that the audience gets the illusion that she's stacked. It's probably in her contract somewhere.

Here's the blasted trailer.