- Share This Post
- submit
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: 2
I just read a really interesting movie review.
It's for "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: 2", a movie I recently saw
that's currently in theaters. I enjoyed the first "Sisterhood" movie,
but I didn't like the second one as much. Always one to harp on a
detail, I was aggravated by the fact that the characters weren't able
to voice the words "condom", "period", or, God-forbid, "emergency
contraception". It also seemed more unrealistic and choppy than the
first film. But Jessica Reaves of the Chicago Tribune says:
"In
the current popular culture, female friendships—at any age—are
generally considered secondary to life's "important" relationships, the
romantic bonds between men and women.
Nowhere is this depressing trend more evident than in Hollywood, where
story lines putatively about women's friendships tend toward the
saccharine ("Mona Lisa Smile"), the malicious ("Mean Girls") or the
boy-crazy (take your pick). Which is why it's such a pleasure (and a relief) to encounter movies such as " The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2."
Like the first "Pants" movie, it presents its heroines' relationships
as complicated, challenging and particularly rewarding, and not simply
as a vehicle for finding the perfect boyfriend."
and:
"Nothing
about this movie feels revolutionary, but don't let its easy charm fool
you. Like its predecessor, "Sisterhood 2" is based on two radical
ideas: namely, that young women's stories are about more than the
pursuit of men, and that happiness isn't something someone else gives
you—it's something you have to find for yourself."
I
find it immensely sad that this is a "radical" idea. I wish I could say
with certainty that it's only radical at the box office, but I'm not
sure if that's the case. And how radical was it really, when 3 out of
the 4 characters have life-changing experiences involving men? In
Carmen [America Ferrara]'s storyline, a handsome British boy appears
out of the wings of a theater and inspires her to achieve her true
potential. As usual, women are steadfast companions, but men are
catalysts for change. And that's an old chestnut. Can't we please be
radical once we've started being radical?
I remember quoting another blog in my post on buddy movies.
The author said that we should go see "Baby Mama", even if we think
we'll hate the movie, because we need to show Hollywood that
female-fronted films can make money. But I'm conflicted about
the idea of sacrificing $10.50 for a movie I may not enjoy, or telling
others to do so. I want to see more movies like "Sisterhood", but if a
movie doesn't "feel revolutionary", is anyone (besides chronic
overthinkers) going to get that it is?
