Sunday, March 4, 2018

Liz Jones on Jennifer Lawrence

Famed British provocatrice Liz Jones, currently a columnist for the Daily Mail, has gone to see Red Sparrow. You know about Red Sparrow. In it, Jennifer Lawrence attempts to overcome the negative emotional effects of having had her private parts displayed across the world… by retaking possession of said private parts and selling them herself. 

Lawrence has become fully woke and it out selling her new movie, which has received some decidedly negative reviews, by drawing attention to her naked body. If that doesn’t draw people to the theatres, what will?

Anyway, I have not seen the movie. Liz Jones has. What really interests me in her column this morning in the Daily Mail, is that her views so thoroughly coincide with mine. I think it’s one of those—great minds think alike—moments. It is surely worthy of note.

Jones writes:

Red Sparrow was green-lit (by men – the director is, bafflingly, the same bloke behind three of her fabulous, girl power Hunger Games films) before the Weinstein scandal broke. But that’s no excuse.

Lawrence of course defends the film’s nudity and violence. But I’m sorry, the whole ‘I’m playing a character so it’s art’ defence no longer works, post-Weinstein. Red Sparrow isn’t art, it’s abusive porn. In fact, it’s worse than porn, as porn stars don’t have Lawrence’s young, impressionable female fans.

Jones emphasizes a point that I emphasized—namely, that Lawrence is so powerful in Hollywood that she does not have to compromise herself to get attention or to get a role:

Some actresses would not have the luxury of choice. Lawrence does. She was the highest-paid Hollywood actress in 2015 and 2016, yet she chose to make this dross.
What about the sex scenes? Jones comments:

Her sex scenes are so crass they make that Sharon Stone moment in Basic Instinct seem as tame as Hello Kitty.

She continues:

It is unfathomable how she ever agreed to them but a clue may lie in an interview she gave to Radio 1 not long ago. 

She was her usual loud, profanity-strewn self, a persona that has endeared her to millions of female fans. In it, she revealed that when she watches herself on screen, she has to get over her ‘general overall ugliness’.

Is that what drove her to make this film, one that will haunt her political career (she’s taking two years off to persuade young women to vote) as surely as those ‘p***y-grabbing’ boasts haunt Trump? I find it hard to believe. Red Sparrow isn’t self-doubt, it’s self-harm.

As for the leaked photos of Lawrence, Jones adds:

What makes it even more incomprehensible is that back in 2014, Lawrence spoke out at being violated when private naked photos were leaked on the internet. 

So, this must be her revenge – to make hackers redundant by doing their job for them and keeping the profits for herself. I only hope she doesn’t have the gall to turn up at the Oscars tonight sporting a Time’s Up badge, wearing black to express solidaridee.

Jennifer, you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. You had a choice. 

To have had this film edited in a different way. To cut away from scenes that are now burned on my retina. To hold a hand out to misguided girls, staggering in gutters of a Friday night, freezing in micro skirts and bralets, who think it’s their ‘choice’ to get paralytic and pawed. But you snatched your hand away.

Excellent points, especially the one about the influence this will have on young women. An excellent column, even if Liz Jones drew the same conclusion that I did.


Jack Fisher said...

"Some actresses would not have the luxury of choice."

Every actress has the luxury of choice. Either its "no", or its "how much?", and if she agrees to the latter, well, your role models failed you and you ultimately failed yourself.

Here's a take-down of The Hunger Games by The Last Psychiatrist (multiple parts):

What's Wrong With The Hunger Games Is What No One Noticed

"This is not a criticism about the entertainment value of the story, but about its popularity and the pretense that it has a strong female character. I like the story of Cinderella, but I doubt that anyone would consider Cinderella a strong female character, yet Katniss and Cinderella are identical."

Sam L. said...

I'm sure she's rich now, but she certainly is NOT smart.

Anonymous said...

Yes, both you and Jones are correct.

It’s amazing how the contagiously harmful filth Hollywood produces is sacrosanct under their literalist interpretations of the First Amendment. Now Jennifer Lawrence — a highly-talented actress — is parading around her right to make whatever crappy films she wants. Fine, but we the people retain the right to not attend. Let’s see how that works out. There are only so many weirdos in the world who will go see Lawrence’s other disgusting movie “Mother.”

Meanwhile, in other post-Parkdale news, the plainly-written Second Amendment is universally despised by the acting “community,” held to be an anachronism that must be done away with.

“Time’s up,” eh? Be careful what you wish for. We can choose to ignore other Constitutional Amendments, too.

Lefties claim that law-abiding citizens must not be allowed to purchase firearms for their own personal protection and self-defense. This belief is universal and dogmatically-proclaimed. No matter what the Constitution says. Mention the Second Amendment to them and they instantly — miraculously! — become Taliban-like fundamentalists, adroit in their modernist sentence diagramming and Constitutional exegesis, without reference to history or textual meaning. To achieve their imaginary future with gun control, we must pass laws that inevitably provide psychotics and criminals with a monopoly on murder. That is the Hollywood view of social justice.

Meanwhile, these same actors make pixelated delights to titillate our most base curiosities, as they run around shooting people... the “bad guys.” I’m sorry, those ideas are simplistic and fantastic as the implausible stories they tell. The entertainment industry produces video games as realistically as the possibly can using... “assault rifles” and handguns (ones that run out of ammo and be reloaded so you can shoot again). I guess you can have it both ways when you make millions, donate to one political party, and are surrounded by bodyguards who are all... men with guns. Yeah, that makes sense. Jimmy Kimmel says so.

I can endure in the loathsome popular culture the elites have created, so long as I am able to protect myself from the human zombie killers they spawn — people like Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza and Niklas Cruz. Why? Because there is a First Amendment AND a Second Amendment, and the Framers show us their wisdom and why both are so important today. It’s not an either-or.

Artists simply emote, and hide behind the First Amendment as the aegis for why they should be able to emote without consequence — and evoke the emotions of others. Even in political matters. It’s “freedom of expression” as penumbra for speech. Okay, then I suppose the unqualified text “... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” is an expression that’s too complicated. I guess for liberals — the smartest people in the world — thinking is for suckers.

Enjoy the Oscars, and a Jennifer Lawrence’s sex scenes. Stupidity is the new black.


Anonymous said...

Conveys the salient idea perfectly: