Haywire (Steven Soderbergh)

[B-side]

I believe I spoke of Tatum and Carano's sexual encounter in my initial writing on the film, but it bears repeating that that single encounter sets the stage for the entire film. Soderbergh's approach to that one scene is so close to the most respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality I've ever seen on film. Nobody seduces the other. The man doesn't take control. The woman isn't a temptress or a whore. It's stages with a nearly sterile sense of naturalism, but so sublimely so it almost feels oneiric.

[Qrazy]

I believe I spoke of Tatum and Carano's sexual encounter in my initial writing on the film, but it bears repeating that that single encounter sets the stage for the entire film. Soderbergh's approach to that one scene is so close to the most respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality I've ever seen on film. Nobody seduces the other. The man doesn't take control. The woman isn't a temptress or a whore. It's stages with a nearly sterile sense of naturalism, but so sublimely so it almost feels oneiric.

Either you're prone to hyperbole or you need to see more films. I know you've seen plenty of films so it must be the former.

[Qrazy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "sexy money shots," but a lot of the sexuality in this film is contextualized in the way I've tried to frame it, as self-aware and subversive (perhaps not all?). I also don't think this film is in any way trying to explore the "seedy underbelly" of sex in the genre, but rather to divest it of its glamor and allure, and to make gestures about gender roles. That isn't to make it dark or seedy, per se. It's just frank and sterile. When Carano and Tatum's characters hook up, there's no foreplay, there's no sexy banter, there's no flirting or romantic devices. It isn't shot with lush framing and elegant music. It's straightforward and calculated, cold and dispassionate, but with a touch of aggression. It fits with the film's overall formalism. This is very different from how a Bond sex scene would go.

There's some flirtation between their characters prior to the scene where they hook up. I also don't think their hook-up is calculated, cold and dispassionate in the slightest and I think it's made pretty clear especially by the end of the film that she cares about the guy when she has to watch him die.

[B-side]

How about neither?

[Qrazy]

How about neither?

Okay, out of all the romance and drama films ever made in the history of the cinema the film Haywire has for you the most 'respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality' ever. Noted.

[Izzy Black]

There's some flirtation between their characters prior to the scene where they hook up. I also don't think their hook-up is calculated, cold and dispassionate in the slightest and I think it's made pretty clear especially by the end of the film that she cares about the guy when she has to watch him die.

The interaction mostly consists of mundane talk about the mission and their careers. There's perhaps just enough flirtation to establish an attraction there, but this is hardly a quintessential case of romantic seduction. Perhaps it's not as cold and dispassionate as I've suggested, but it all still seems very understated and abrupt, downplaying the role of traditional male seduction and avoiding displays of over the top passion. It wasn't my intention to suggest that she didn't care about the guy, though.

[B-side]

Okay, out of all the romance and drama films ever made in the history of the cinema the film Haywire has for you the most 'respectfully consensual and mutually inclusive act of sexuality' ever. Noted.

I added the qualifier "so close" because don't like making those kinds of definitive statements, but Izzy seems to get the general idea of what I'm talking about.

[Qrazy]

The interaction mostly consists of mundane talk about the mission and their careers. There's perhaps just enough flirtation to establish an attraction there, but this is hardly a quintessential case of romantic seduction. Perhaps it's not as cold and dispassionate as I've suggested, but it all still seems very understated and abrupt, downplaying the role of traditional male seduction and avoiding displays of over the top passion. It wasn't my intention to suggest that she didn't care about the guy, though.

This isn't exactly the first female spy film that empowers a woman by making her the protagonist and thereby downplays traditional male seduction.

[B-side]

If that were all that was done to subvert the role, then you might have a point, but Izzy and I have both pointed out specific aspects that add to that role-reversal.

[Qrazy]

If that were all that was done to subvert the role, then you might have a point, but Izzy and I have both pointed out specific aspects that add to that role-reversal.

Similar to the way in which I have pointed out specific aspects which make this film bad.

[transmogrifier]

You're right. You can make a film like that's not dramatically inert, but it wouldn't be the same film, and it's not clear to me that it would be obviously better for it. The point of the movie, on my reading, is to be dramatically inert, at some level. I would lose something of value to get something else (it wouldn't function the same way as an anti-genre film). As for the humor, there's some irony and self-reference there as with any Soderbergh film, but the kind of comedic banter we'd expect from this kind of genre is really kept to a minimum.

Why would making an "anti-genre" film necessitate that it be dramatically inert? Drama is the sole preserve of genre? Please explain.

Anyway, the completely jokey ending that is part and parcel of typical genre fare works against your argument, such as it is.

[Izzy Black]

This isn't exactly the first female spy film that empowers a woman by making her the protagonist and thereby downplays traditional male seduction.

My point wasn't merely about her being the protagonist, but in any case, I wasn't arguing for unqualified originality either, even if I was making pointed contrasts.

[Izzy Black]

Why would making an "anti-genre" film necessitate that it be dramatically inert? Drama is the sole preserve of genre? Please explain.

I wouldn't say it's necessitated, but I would say (and did say) that it wouldn't function in the same way. My only point is that the aim of this film is to target a particular brand of genre, style, or aesthetic, and to subvert it. This involves the kind of genre that (typically) involves hyped up dramatic elements or situations. This goes to Soderbergh's stated intentions to position the film as an anti-Bond film (but also perhaps just as well as an anti-Bourne film). It didn't work for you. I get it. But it worked for me.

Anyway, the completely jokey ending that is part and parcel of typical genre fare works against your argument, such as it is.

I don't think so, and I've already addressed this. I don't know I'd call it a "jokey" ending, but in any case, I've already said that irony and self-reference is a key element in this film. My point about the lack of humor had less to do with tone and more to do with the drama. That's a significant distinction. I don't think the film takes itself too seriously, however, even if the dramatics are pretty dry. (In fact, part of how I think it is successful is distinguishing itself from certain spy movies - not all of them - that do take themselves too seriously by playing up the melodrama.)

[Qrazy]

It didn't work for you. I get it. But it worked for me.

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure why this should keep us from voicing our criticisms of a film which did not work for us while you and others are particularly outspoken in regards to Nolan and other such films which do not work for you.

[Qrazy]

My point wasn't merely about her being the protagonist, but in any case, I wasn't arguing for unqualified originality either, even if I was making pointed contrasts.

I'm sort of curious how The Long Kiss Goodnight holds up. I remember finding it quite mediocre as a young teen, I'm guessing it would be even worse now.

[Izzy Black]

You keep saying this, but I'm not sure why this should keep us from voicing our criticisms of a film which did not work for us while you and others are particularly outspoken in regards to Nolan and other such films which do not work for you.

I don't mind people voicing criticisms at all. In fact, it's what I love most about this board. I just think sometimes people do not immediately appreciate the point that I might like something for the very same reason that they're lodging a criticism at it. If that's a misread, though, then my mistake.

[Izzy Black]

I'm sort of curious how The Long Kiss Goodnight holds up. I remember finding it quite mediocre as a young teen, I'm guessing it would be even worse now.

Likewise. I think 1996 was the last and only time I saw that movie.

[Skitch]

LKG has some amusing moments and the plot became kind of uncomfortable for me after 9/11. As a film I would rate it mostly harmless.

[Milky Joe]

In terms of mediocre-to-bad 1996 action films I haven't seen since they came out, Chain Reaction > Long Kiss Goodnight.