Rude, crude playing field
Glenn Whipp asserts that Paul Feig is one of the most important filmmakers in Hollywood because he has obliterated the wall that separates the sexes in comedies ["Point Made by Comedy Genre Gender-Flipping," June 14], or stated more explicitly, women can be as crude and crass as men, and people will flock to the theaters for this type of entertainment.
Whipp also emphasizes the importance of Feig's films, but that importance is based solely on revenue, not on meaningful and thought-provoking filmmaking. Moreover, he claims the director "…is creating emotionally honest female characters who are strong, funny and driving the plot." Nonetheless, this plot is puerile and unrealistic, with female characters whose strength emanates from the profuse profanity they can spew out in one sentence.
Feig might have obliterated that wall to equalize the playing field, but by so doing, he's also successfully lowered the standards for both sexes.
Rethinking rape as a plot point
Mary McNamara is missing large parts of the rape picture ["Frankly Overdue," June 14]. She maintains that because it's part of life that it should be included in forms of entertainment. What she fails to mention is that rape is all too often used as plot point. Many writers think that for a female character to earn her place in the piece she must be raped or be a rape victim. In addition, the treatment of the actual scenes is protracted and sexual in nature. They are specifically designed to titillate and excite. As if to prove this point, think about how many times you have seen a man raped in a movie or TV show.
I watch "Downton Abbey," and I was angry about the rape of Anna. McNamara is right about one thing: (t was written only to further the plot of her husband, Mr. Bates. That's called sexual exploitation.
Further, in regards to "Game of Thrones," why is it that in an imaginary world, white people are still subjected to the deplorable culture similar to that of medieval England? The writers have had all the freedom they've needed to make a new world, and this is what they've chosen? Lastly, rape should not be part of entertainment because of the toll it takes on real victims. McNamara writes as though rape were a normal part of life and that we should accept that and include it as part of our entertainment. I say, we should not. Rape is a hate crime, pure and simple. We wouldn't use lynching in so many movies and books and act as though it were an everyday occurrence.
I read "Frankly Overdue" with great interest, but there was a glaring omission. How could you not mention the rape of Khandi Alexander's character and its aftermath in the grossly underrated HBO series "Treme"? Even in "entertainment," black lives don't matter, let alone those of black women.
Crazy little thing called Queen
Can't understand how anyone would think the Queen + Adam Lambert tour didn't work ["Dialing Down on the Drama," June 14]. Millions of seats were filled, millions of dollars made, die-hard Queen fans became Glamberts, die-hard Glamberts became Queen fans ... and you say it didn't work. Oh, guess you mean it didn't work for you.
Thanks, Adam, for sticking up for yourself and Queen. Oh, and for all of us who believe it was magic.
Enough with the wimpy 3-D!
Here's another blockbuster, "Jurassic World," that holds back on the 3-D. I saw it at the best possible venue, the Chinese Theatre, with new state-of-the-art IMAX laser projection, and although the presentation was impeccable, the 3-D was pretty lame, just like with all of today's 3-D movies.
Compare that to the American Cinematheque's 100th anniversary of 3-D films at the Aero Theatre last week. Not only was the 3-D better and more pronounced in films from the 1930s and 1940s , but even the sample from 1915 was.
Disneyland and Epcot have had awesome 3-D for decades, so it's not like they can't do it now. No, they have the full capability better than ever. It's that they intentionally hold back so as to be more immersive without distracting.
You have to wonder how the lack of full 3-D potential keeps happening. Did the director ask to push the 3-D more? Was he afraid to? How about Universal? Spielberg? Did anyone say, "Gee, with this movie's content, shouldn't we really deliver on the 3-D more in many scenes?"
Stop the nonsense. Smack us in the face, or stay 2-D! It's not dino science.