Pretty Woman - ITV Now

[Georgie Porgie]

Every time I watch it, and I've seen it many times (not because I like it, I just like to analyse it) I always end up asking the same questions:

Why is Julia Roberts a prostitute? It makes no sense, she's not addicted to drugs, she's not desperately poor, she could have done any other job. She's certainly not doing it for fun, the whole thing makes no sense.

Because prostitutes are ugly witches, right?

Worse still, is the fact that her only way out is Richard Gere, a oportunistic bastard who buys up companies and resells them...

Because all businessmen are bastards, right?

The whole film is about this stupid idea that the most anyone can expect from life is becoming rich - or marrying someone rich and that she needed rescuing because she was so helpless...

No, the film is about love crossing status boundaries. It's your interpretation that makes a big deal out of the millionaire/prostitute situation... to me they are just logical 'opposites'. In fact.. when you're talking about fairytales - the more opposite, the better.

The stereotype of a helpless women being rescued by (a rich) man stinks...

I think so too.

This film is not about love. Would she still have fallen for RG if he had been poor?

Because the film is about crossing status boundaries it wouldn't have worked if RG had been poor.

 

[Jazzz]

oh you idiots, the film's not about money, or love crossing status boundaries, ptcha!

it's simply 'Cinderella'

 

[equationgirl]

I like it, it's a optimistic film, and I like optimism.

By the way, it's not real life, it's a film.

Why did Julia Roberts become a prostitute? In the film she says, 'Kit made it sound so glamourous'. Hardly a realistic reason is it?

 

[equationgirl]

oh you idiots, the film's not about money, or love crossing status boundaries, ptcha!

it's simply 'Cinderella'

Shit. I agree with Jazz.

*implodes*

 

[Jazzz]

Quick equationgirl! delete your post before anyone notices!

 

[girasol]

Because prostitutes are ugly witches, right?

I've no idea how you read that between the lines of my post, maybe it's because that's what you think?

 

[Dubversion]

I like it, it's a optimistic film, and I like optimism.

damn right

"fuck enough blokes for money and eventually one of them will take you away from all this".

there's an optimistic message for us all

 

[equationgirl]

No, no no no no no!

Everything works out all right in the end.

No matter what.

 

[Xanadu]

I just don't get why anyone would identify with it in anyway

Because I'm a millionnaire who likes opera and plays the piano looking to pick up a prossie to marry.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

oh you idiots, the film's not about money, or love crossing status boundaries, ptcha!

it's simply 'Cinderella'

.. and what's Cinderella?

.. exactly.. the story of a poor girl working girl meeting a rich and handsome, but feckless prince.

Love crossing boundaries.

Prick.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

I've no idea how you read that between the lines of my post, maybe it's because that's what you think?

No, it's because that's what you implied.

Why shouldn't someone like JR be a prostitute? Where's the law that says prostitutes can't be beautiful and talented.. just unable to find any alternatives?

 

[joely]

Hollywood slip slop.

I try and avoid Hollywood crap as much as possible.

 

[girasol]

No, it's because that's what you implied.

Why shouldn't someone like JR be a prostitute? Where's the law that says prostitutes can't be beautiful and talented.. just unable to find any alternatives?

If you read my original post again you will see that I stated clearly the reasons why it made no sense for her to be a prostitute.

I didn't mention the way she looked anywhere... I was coming from a different angle: if you look into the typical profile of women who become prostitutes you will see she doesn't fit it.

Bloody Hell, Geordie Porgie, you're a prickly one aren't you?

 

[Georgie Porgie]

If you read my original post again you will see that I stated clearly the reasons why it made no sense for her to be a prostitute.

I didn't mention the way she looked anywhere... I was coming from a different angle: if you look into the typical profile of women who become prostitutes you will see she doesn't fit it.

It was the implication that she was 'too good' to be a prostitute. I know you didn't say it.. but I felt it was quite blatent.

Bloody Hell, Geordie Porgie, you're a prickly one aren't you?

Not particularly.. I wasn't particularly having a go at you.. just pointing out where I think you're mis-reading the plot.

 

[bigbry]

There's so many people here who take it all too seriously - it's not SDhakespeare or Zola, This is a Hollywood rom-com.

As someone said it was playing the class divide for entertainment - if they were both poor or both rich you wouldn't get the clash of classes that produced some of the laughs (and if you didn't laugh you're watching the wrong sort of film).

I'm amazed how many people deride someone's choice of film (PW ?) or music (Phil Collins ?) as if their POV was the only one that mattered. It's just a personal view - you don't like PW and someone else does, doesn't mean either of you is right or wrong - it's just a different POV. Millions of people watched PW and enjoyed it - millions of people have bought a Phil Collins album. It's just their choice.

 

[kyser_soze]

There are some interesting points on this thread - Wry and I watched it last night, partly cos Wry likes it and I wanted to re-appraise it in the light of this thread.

1. It's a very watchable film for a mainstream audience. Both leads are easy on the eye and have decent screen presence; the script is well put together; there are some decent jokes in it; it presses all the multiplex buttons

2. The subtext. Well, you can choose to be cynical about it; get verty self-righteous about it; or you can simply accept the film on it's own terms - a modern re-telling and combination of Cinderella, Pygmalion and a few other archetypal fairy tales.

3. Why is JR a hooker...well you might as well ask 'Why is Gandalf a Wizard?' or 'Why didn't the gunner on the star destroyer shoot the escape pod that C3-PO and R2-D2 are in?'...or even why does Jack take the magic beans for the cow instead of telling the old man to fuck off...it's all about willing suspension of disbelief.

I'm still not a fan of the film - I think there are better rom-coms, but I think it's possible to read WAY to much into what is essentially a piece of fluff...

 

[Reno]

Not everybody wants approach films as a passive spectator, which is what you are proposing keyser_soze.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Christ, I really ought to be really analytical when watching fluff, cos I didn't find it half as offensive as some people here. I do tend to turn my brain off when watching this kind of thing, i have to admit.

 

[kyser_soze]

Not everybody wants approach films as a passive spectator, which is what you are proposing keyser_soze.

But that's the whole point of a movie - like TV it's a passive, or 'lean back' medium. You sit back and are entertained, informed etc etc - no imagination is required, and very little intellectual or emotional effort to engage with the characters, plot etc - what's required is the filmmaker create a convincign enough universe within the film that you accept it's reality (willing suspension of disbelief). In order to maintain that suspension, the filmmaker must provide emotionally satisfying characters, consistent and continuous plot (or at least the appearance of such a thing - viz Lost Highway which doesn't appear to have one but does) throughout the film.

Which is why placing deep critical analysis of a film which is basically a combination of about 2 archetypal characters/2 stories (diamond in the rough&emotionally dead king of the world, social climbing/moral redemption) could be seen as placing too heavy a critical burden on a flimsy story.

 

[Dubversion]

that post seems like it's totally wrong to me, kyser, but i can't quite find a way to unpick it, which is frustrating me.


however this

In order to maintain that suspension, the filmmaker must provide emotionally satisfying characters, consistent and continuous plot

stands out. If the characters aren't 'satisfying' - because of what you feel they represent, what they're about - there's a problem. And in a film like Pretty Woman, there's your problem.

 

[omlette]

2. The subtext. Well, you can choose to be cynical about it; get verty self-righteous about it; or you can simply accept the film on it's own terms - a modern re-telling and combination of Cinderella, Pygmalion and a few other archetypal fairy tales.

I don't think disliking this movie is a case of being self-righteous for its own sake, or failing to understand the Cinderella-like theme.

There's a time to sit back and be a happy vegetable and *just enjoy the movie*, and there's a time to say oi, that was pretty fucking offensive, actually, under the syrup. It's definitely not a case of not being able to enjoy silly romcoms for what they are, or getting too het up about them in general, it's just not liking this one in particular for all the reasons mentioned in the thread.

It's the sort of film I really wouldn't want my daughter to see at an impressionable age, kwim? (well she's only 3, I can probably put it off for a few years )

 

[Dubversion]

also, kyser, i'm sure you know as well as anyone that those archetypes themselves are full of subtext...

 

[kyser_soze]

It's the sort of film I really wouldn't want my daughter to see at an impressionable age, kwim?

Well it carries a 15 certificate...

also, kyser, i'm sure you know as well as anyone that those archetypes themselves are full of subtext...

True, but much of the criticism here is based on crticial theory that when you apply it to any fairy tale, in either it's classical form or modern takes on them, will come out with them being morally 'unacceptable' to many.

Personally I couldn't give a toss - I'm just piss bored at work and it's a chance to stretch me debating faculties a wee bit...

 

[Dubversion]

i think we can take it as a given that everything has a subtext.

i think we can take it as a given that every film, consciously or not, reinforces or challenges or exposes social norms or whatever.

The problem with Pretty Woman is not that it's a crap dumb Hollywood romcom - in fact, by some measures maybe it's a fairly decent dumb Hollywood romcom (production values, script etc).. It's that the subtext isn't that sub; that the social norms it reinforces are particularly odious ones.

etc.

 

[Orang Utan]

This debate reminds me of watching A Time To Kill and being absolutely hopping mad at its offensiveness. Yet when I posted on here about it (actually it may have been somewhere else), people just said 'chill out, it's only a film', so I got even more angry!

 

[kyser_soze]

that post seems like it's totally wrong to me, kyser, but i can't quite find a way to unpick it, which is frustrating me.


however this



stands out. If the characters aren't 'satisfying' - because of what you feel they represent, what they're about - there's a problem. And in a film like Pretty Woman, there's your problem.

Yeah, but that criticism comes in two flavours - the morally incorrect message flavour, and Iemanja's point about JR being an 'unrealistic' hooker (which if you look at the basis of her storyline is entirely consistent with the archetype of the story - Cinderella is beautiful which is why she ended up in the kitchens in the first place)

However, while it might not meet the criteria for WSoD for the higher-then-average requirements of Urban75, I'd put money on it that a survey of 100 people who'd seen the film would

a. disagree with your assessment about the characters being unsatisfying
b. think that most of the stuff about the Vivian/Edward roles was unecessary, typically lefty miserablism.

 

[Dubversion]

Yeah, but that criticism comes in two flavours - the morally incorrect message flavour, and Iemanja's point about JR being an 'unrealistic' hooker (which if you look at the basis of her storyline is entirely consistent with the archetype of the story - Cinderella is beautiful which is why she ended up in the kitchens in the first place)

but Iemanja's point about the realism does elide with the misogyny as well, in that it represents a 'tidying up' of the reality of the situation to make the moral point SEEM less repugnant..

However, while it might not meet the criteria for WSoD for the higher-then-average requirements of Urban75, I'd put money on it that a survey of 100 people who'd seen the film would

a. disagree with your assessment about the characters being unsatisfying
b. think that most of the stuff about the Vivian/Edward roles was unecessary, typically lefty miserablism.

Sorry, but i really don't give two shits what the other 100 people think - i can only have my own reaction to the film. I'm no lefty miserabilist (well, i'm no lefty, anyway ) AND when i first saw the film I probably didn't know much about subtexts and the like, it just stuck in my craw...

 

[omlette]

This debate reminds me of watching A Time To Kill and being absolutely hopping mad at its offensiveness. Yet when I posted on here about it (actually it may have been somewhere else), people just said 'chill out, it's only a film', so I got even more angry!

what did you find offensive about it?

(I'm sure I know, just interested in your take on it.... )

 

[Orang Utan]

what did you find offensive about it?

(I'm sure I know, just interested in your take on it.... )

Its cynicism about race relations, its justification of murder, its contempt of justice and rule of law and its clumsy stereotyping. Leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth.

 

[Dubversion]

it's like Children of Men. Someone (and i'm not having a pop, it was a reasonable point!) suggested that I should 'not analyse things so much' because I found the politics / message of the movie really muddled.

I just can't watch a film like that, I don't consciously sit there and try and pick a movie apart but enjoying a film is a complicated collision of myriad factors, and if one element doesn't work for me I notice it. Children of Men wants to be perceived as a 'serious' film and thus needs to be watched as such. And for me, it failed on that basis.

As a rule, I wouldn't watch a film like Pretty Woman too closely - i do quite like some dumb movies - but for me, the unpleasant aspect of the movie is too in-your-face to just ignore or put to one side.