Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

[Gold Trumpet]

I ended up seeing Scott Pilgrim vs. The World twice and my enthusiasm didn't damper on the second viewing, but I should make the statement that my love for this movie is simple as there is a cathartic experience in watching the movie. It's a great ride and consistently funny while also being endearing. Someone asked me if I saw anything revelatory in the relationship between Ramona and Scott. I did not, but I don't care. The charm of their entanglement makes you care for all the small moments that the film wants you to think is funny. Charm is subjective and I fell head over heels for this movie.

There is definitely a Michael Cera backlash with this movie. I know lots of people who would normally love this movie but they were not interested in going to theaters because of Cera. However, I think this movie will be a cult hit on DVD. It could become what Boondocks Saints is to the college crowd, but instead it could appease to hipster minded section. If the movie becomes an entertainment classic then I will be very happy for it.

[Pubrick]

If the movie becomes an entertainment classic then I will be very happy for it.

i can tell you right now that is never going to happen.

cera simply looks FREAKISH in this film. he already lacks certain qualities that anyone his age should have, looking like a MAN for one thing.. and his exaggerated slender features in this just make the film a huge turn off as far as his character is concerned. he makes me CRINGE to look at sometimes, and his voice just makes his entire being into some kind of freakshow.

not to mention the added problem that pete should have pointed out if he reviewed this film (can't be bothered to see if if has), that Ramona KISSES FIRST. ever since pete pointed that out as a major flaw in new indie films i have really grown to hate it as well. it single handedly illustrates the lack of emotional depth (and yes you need SOME level of believability) that the film has. yes it looks amazing but that can hardly sustain another viewing when just thinking about the endless array of fight sequences each with their own COMPLETELY ARBITRARY set of rules makes me want to just skip to the good parts or watch the film on mute.

and those good parts are very few and are almost completely centered around Ramona's pretty face and other incredibly fine features. that is the only thing this film will be remembered for, certainly not any scene that features michael CHINLESS cera.

[Gold Trumpet]

Huh?

[Pubrick]

you said the film has potential to become a cult hit/entertainment classic, to which i replied:


"i can tell you right now that is never going to happen.

cera simply looks FREAKISH in this film. he already lacks certain qualities that anyone his age should have, looking like a MAN for one thing.. and his exaggerated slender features in this just make the film a huge turn off as far as his character is concerned. he makes me CRINGE to look at sometimes, and his voice just makes his entire being into some kind of freakshow.

not to mention the added problem that pete should have pointed out if he reviewed this film (can't be bothered to see if if has), that Ramona KISSES FIRST. ever since pete pointed that out as a major flaw in new indie films i have really grown to hate it as well. it single handedly illustrates the lack of emotional depth (and yes you need SOME level of believability) that the film has. yes it looks amazing but that can hardly sustain another viewing when just thinking about the endless array of fight sequences each with their own COMPLETELY ARBITRARY set of rules makes me want to just skip to the good parts or watch the film on mute.

and those good parts are very few and are almost completely centered around Ramona's pretty face and other incredibly fine features. that is the only thing this film will be remembered for, certainly not any scene that features michael CHINLESS cera."



did you get it this time?

[polkablues]

Allow me to illustrate.


http://fuckyeahprancingcera.tumblr.com/

[Gold Trumpet]

I thought by implicating Boondock Saints, I wasn't saying the film would be popular for all the right or understandable reasons. Most of these cult classics are popular for various reasons. My point is a shot in the dark and it cannot be justified until years down the road, but I don't see how a shot in the dark prediction about what will be popular down the road can really be argued either. It just is what it is.

[children with angels]

the added problem that pete should have pointed out if he reviewed this film (can't be bothered to see if if has), that Ramona KISSES FIRST. ever since pete pointed that out as a major flaw in new indie films i have really grown to hate it as well. it single handedly illustrates the lack of emotional depth (and yes you need SOME level of believability) that the film has.

I've said it before, but man - this just strikes me as a total bullshit thing to call out as an 'unrealistic' convention! Have you never had a girl kiss you first? Do you not have female friends who are prepared to kiss first? It DOES happen! If it happens more in indie films it's because they're probably consciously trying to win over an audience that might be more likely to see itself as nominally feminist. Whether that's a shallow assumption, or a shallow way to show feminism, is another question (alone, it is) - I'm just speculating on causes here. But yeah - I really can't see this in itself as showing a lack of believability or emotional depth: it's surely just a pretty healthy reflection of the changing sexual landscape.

[socketlevel]

It DOES happen! ... I really can't see this in itself as showing a lack of believability or emotional depth: it's surely just a pretty healthy reflection of the changing sexual landscape.

Oh how I'd love to be an optimist.

Yes I've had a girl go for it in the past, but we're talking needles in a haystack. there is no changing sexual landscape that will make that commonplace. Even in the midst of the 60s sexual revolution, I'm sure more often then not the male and female traditional courting roles were vastly upheld. I think I side with P on this one. this is an idealised version of some nerdy guy's fantasy (very similar to how true romance was in the early 90s). 

In the end he's got to battle these guys right? that's a very macho environment for this presumably passive character.

if they really wanted to show the changing gender roles, they would have made a movie called Ramona Vs. the World and basically switched the two characters.

[polkablues]

Regardless of how often it may happen in real life, when it reaches the point where you can predict it happening by looking at the poster font, it's become a trope. It's lazy storytelling at this point, existing as a shorthand to let us know what kind of movie we're watching.

[children with angels]

It DOES happen! ... I really can't see this in itself as showing a lack of believability or emotional depth: it's surely just a pretty healthy reflection of the changing sexual landscape.

this is an idealised version of some nerdy guy's fantasy (very similar to how true romance was in the early 90s). because in the end he's got to battle these guys right? that's a very macho environment for this presumably passive character.

if they really wanted to show the changing gender roles, they would have made a movie called Ramona Vs. the World and basically switched the two characters.

This I completely agree with, and I do think that the sexual politics of the film as a whole were surprisingly traditional. However, I was just talking about this one convention in particular.

Yes I've had a girl go for it in the past, but we're talking needles in a haystack. there is no changing sexual landscape that will make that commonplace. Even in the midst of the 60s sexual revolution, I'm sure more often then not the male and female traditional courting roles were vastly upheld.

This is probably true (though judging from my circle of female friends and acquaintances, I'd say we're talking about bigger numbers than needles in haystacks!), but it's also PARTLY true because of how women (and men) are socialised by things in the culture around them, like movies, which offer frameworks of how to behave. Yes, it's rarer for women to kiss first than men, but I think that the relatively small number of movies in which it happens (i.e.: 'quirky' indie comedies), in the grand scheme of filmmaking production as a whole, actually probably reflects about the right ratio!

Regardless of how often it may happen in real life, when it reaches the point where you can predict it happening by looking at the poster font, it's become a trope. It's lazy storytelling at this point, existing as a shorthand to let us know what kind of movie we're watching.

I agree that it IS a trope, but it surely makes no sense to say "regardless of how often it may happen in real life", because it's only the fact that you see it as rare (both within films and in real life) that makes it stand out as a trope! And I'd fall back again on the possibly-lazy, but maybe not too far-out, proposition that this happens in these kinds of films more because they make a conscious decision to present male and female characters who operate on SLIGHTLY less standardized gender lines: the guys can afford to be wimpier and the girls can afford to be stronger. I'm obviously painting in very broad strokes, and I'm not saying this is a giant step forward for feminism or something. All I'm saying is that we should recognise (1) that this is something that happens often enough in real life for it not to be total bullshit, and (2) that it's something that is not bad to put out in the culture, because repetition in cultural products is only likely to ensure that it happens more in real life!

So basically, yeah: if you play the long game, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World will get shy guys laid.

[Gold Trumpet]

It makes sense for Ramona to kiss first. She has the more authoritative personality in general life situations. Scott constantly runs away from the smallest things when it comes to alone time with them. You wonder what she sees in him since he is so scared of dumb things, but him fighting her past ex's reveals all the hang ups she is dealing with and why his short comings could come as a relief to her during the beginning stages, but it is also fighting her ex's which makes Scott come to understand the unknown potential he sees in himself and his feelings for Ramona. It's unclear why he likes her so much so suddenly, but there are situations throughout the film where he doubts everything. The progression to certainty is through what he has to endure for her. You can argue it's cheap dramatics but it is also a comic movie and aims to be nothing but that.

[polkablues]

I'm not objecting to its use in films in general, or for that matter its realism (2 out of my 5 major relationships in my life have been Girl Kisses Firsts), but how it's become an obligatory element in a certain type of film, or perhaps more accurately, movies aimed toward a specific audience. I can respect the argument of it being reflective of changing gender roles (though these GKF scenes all seem to smell more of male fantasy than female empowerment), but in terms of storytelling, it can't just be wedged into every single movie about disaffected 20-somethings without becoming a tired cliché.

[socketlevel]

It makes sense for Ramona to kiss first. She has the more authoritative personality in general life situations. Scott constantly runs away from the smallest things when it comes to alone time with them. You wonder what she sees in him since he is so scared of dumb things, but him fighting her past ex's reveals all the hang ups she is dealing with and why his short comings could come as a relief to her during the beginning stages, but it is also fighting her ex's which makes Scott come to understand the unknown potential he sees in himself and his feelings for Ramona. It's unclear why he likes her so much so suddenly, but there are situations throughout the film where he doubts everything. The progression to certainty is through what he has to endure for her. You can argue it's cheap dramatics but it is also a comic movie and aims to be nothing but that.

I agree it should be taken lightly, i just think it's poor characterization. And falls to the same traps I've made about female characters on other threads. they make Ramona seemingly tough (because that's cool to do now) but in the end this authoritative personality also accepts the fact someone has to fight for her... huh? Don't you see a contradiction there? And not a good 3 dimensional internal conflict, just lazy writing. Here is a matter of fact person, that doesn't react to situations the way her character is built. Why does she need someone to fight for her? She doesn't, and it subverts all the Independence that has been built by her demeanor. In effect it makes her look pathetic, despite the rhetoric in the film trying to make her the most put together of all the characters.

I agree Scott's character arch is a good right of passage, to become the man he was meant to be. but for this to happen we have to feel like he's fighting for someone that couldn't fight the fight better than himself. She clearly is way more competent then him. The sentiment is hijacked by this fact. for the record I'm not asking for weak female characters. I seriously would have liked to see "Ramona vs. the world" over this incarnation, or Scott doing it because he had to for her sake. It just feels a little hollow and poorly motivated as is.

[Gold Trumpet]

It makes sense for Ramona to kiss first. She has the more authoritative personality in general life situations. Scott constantly runs away from the smallest things when it comes to alone time with them. You wonder what she sees in him since he is so scared of dumb things, but him fighting her past ex's reveals all the hang ups she is dealing with and why his short comings could come as a relief to her during the beginning stages, but it is also fighting her ex's which makes Scott come to understand the unknown potential he sees in himself and his feelings for Ramona. It's unclear why he likes her so much so suddenly, but there are situations throughout the film where he doubts everything. The progression to certainty is through what he has to endure for her. You can argue it's cheap dramatics but it is also a comic movie and aims to be nothing but that.

I agree it should be taken lightly, i just think it's poor characterization. And falls to the same traps I've made about female characters on other threads. they make Ramona seemingly tough (because that's cool to do now) but in the end this authoritative personality also accepts the fact someone has to fight for her... huh? Don't you see a contradiction there? And not a good 3 dimensional internal conflict, just lazy writing. Here is a matter of fact person, that doesn't react to situations the way her character is built. Why does she need someone to fight for her? She doesn't, and it subverts all the Independence that has been built by her demeanor. In effect it makes her look pathetic, despite the rhetoric in the film trying to make her the most put together of all the characters.

I agree Scott's character arch is a good right of passage, to become the man he was meant to be. but for this to happen we have to feel like he's fighting for someone that couldn't fight the fight better than himself. She clearly is way more competent then him. The sentiment is hijacked by this fact. for the record I'm not asking for weak female characters. I seriously would have liked to see "Ramona vs. the world" over this incarnation, or Scott doing it because he had to for her sake. It just feels a little hollow and poorly motivated as is.

Definitely agree with everything you say, even the larger implications. These issues didn't trump my enjoyment of the film and since it's a light affair, it's a light offense for me. If this film had an interest to merge light with serious like The Breakfast Club, I would be annoyed, but it's a light fantastic take on romance today. I honestly didn't give a shit. Also, since as my original review states, I just got out a situation that mirrors this one. I was no Scott Pilgrim and running away at moments of opportunity, but I was taking to trying to help a normally strong woman from a situation which undermined her every bit of self confidence, it seemed. My identification also keeps me from not caring in this instance.

[pete]

children of angel, I've already explained to you when you raised the point that yes, girls kiss first frequently in real life: it never happens the same way it does in this type of films, and girls in real life are real, not fantasies piled on each other by screenwriters who don't know how to write women.
my favorite kissing scene of all time has a girl kiss first - between jesse eisenberg and jessica beal in Roger Dodger, for the record.