David, I sympthize with your frustration that no one is talking about the deeper message of redemption that the film is trying to convey. It is frustrating when criticisms focus on what seems to be surface content rather than getting to the heart of what deeper issues the surface elements are there to represent.

However, I can't help but sympathize also with the detractors on this one. The image of a "semi-nekkid" woman confined and chained is such a powerful one. It has so much cultural resonance beyond the idea of intervention and the hope of redemption that you say the film addresses. It has a powerfully negative impact, especially when it is used (as it is in the film trailer and on the film's website) for the purpose of titilation. For the film to use this image so very blatantly requires that it take some responsiblity for those resonances. Since I haven't seen the film, I don't know if it does that. It is possible that it does try to use that image in a reponsible way. On the other hand, the advertizing campaign for the film most certainly does not use the images responsibly. Check out the website if you've any doubts about that. I think it makes sense that people are outraged to see these images deployed without context and for the purpose of selling tickets.

I remember hearing once that Sidney Poitier took flack way back when after appearing in an add poster for Porgy and Bess on his knees in chains (I could have the details wrong on that one though). For me, this is a similar situation. It evokes such a strong, visceral reaction of frustration, resentment, and sadness in me, it makes it difficult for me to imagine that the film can accomplish contextualizing that image appropriately. I wonder if it even tries.

Goodness, Barney, who talks to people that way? My poor panties are quite free of twists, thank you!

I did note that the film might use the images responsibly, though the add campaign does not. And I was very honest that my response to the images is visceral, not based on art criticism.

I do think that it is fair to make a political critique of images used in a film. Art is political.

And I'm very tired of the old "if you haven't seen the film shut up" argument. First, we have to weigh and judge a film before we see it in order to decide if we /want/ to see it. Second, just becuase we don't see it, doesn't mean we are not affected by the impact the film may or may not have on our culture. In fact, film in American culture has this extra dimension to it -- it is a public art, something that exists as a work with its own integrity but also as the "buzz" and the criticism and the conversation around it. That's an interesting and wonderful part of the art, I revel in it, and I participate because I love it. And third, for goodness sakes, if we are open about what we have and have not seen (as I was) and fully and freely admit that we don't have the whole story (as I did), what harm is there in discussing our reactions?

If the add campaign is a bait-and-switch, what the hell is the point? People who are mostly interested in the scantily clad chick chained to a radiator won't be receptive to the human story, people who might otherwise be receptive to the human story won't want to see the film because of the chick chained to the radiator. And maybe a few people will feel superior for being "in" on the joke. Bleh.

My question is, does the film take seriously the impact of this image on the viewers -- especially the gender and racial dynamics at play -- or does it treat it in a "nudge nudge wink wink, this is titillating but we aren't going to seriously confront the fact that it is titillating" sort of way?

That's what I meant on another thread when I asked if the film uses the image "responsibly." I didn't just mean in a political or sociological sense. I meant, artistically, does it take seriously the over the top nature of that image and the visceral responses it probably elicits in many people? Does it do anything with it that isn't just sort of ironic and quirky? Or does it ask us to "go there" with the image and then just leave us there with nothing to process about it that is at all meaningful? Is it a throw-away gimmick for an otherwise full story, or is it something that actually needed to be in there for the story to work?