This article makes me wonder, though, what options there are for people who grow up in mostly white neighborhoods and wind in workplaces with mostly white colleagues. How do we seek out legitimate experiences with people of color, without being "racial tourists"? My lack of experience with people of color is something that I very much regret about my upbringing, and yet I do not know how one gains such experience in the real world without coming off as disingenuous and intrusive. I'm asking this question earnestly, and with no intention of causing offence.

Also, anyone interested in the lives of biracial children might enjoy Zadi Smith's /On Beauty/, which features three biracial children (well, actually, young adults) who all come up with very different ways of developing racial identities.

I think it's really interesting that raising questions about this film evokes such rude responses. No one is implying that the film shouldn't exist, that it should be banned, or whipped with a wet noodle, or whatever. No one is trying to be thought police here, as far as I can tell. We're just raising issues about things in what we have seen and heard about the film that bother us. Isn't it part of being a thoughtful audience to be honest about images that make us feel uncomfortable, and to pay attention to doubts we have when we go into a film? I don't know if I am going to see the film or not, and I don't know, when I do, if I will like it or not. If and when I do, my viewing experience will be much enhanced by having thought about these issues. For goodnes sakes, how can we not think about them? How can we not have some type of gut reaction to that image? I see no reason why those of us who are expressing our concerns need to be flatly and rudely dismissed.

What is it about this subject particularly that makes people feel so irritated by questions? Is this just feminist bashing, or have I committed a wrong that I am not aware of? I've said far more controversial things about far more important topics in the past and been treated with respect on this board. What is so threatening about being frank about negative reactions to seeing a woman chained to a radiator? Seriously.

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?

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?