Sarah !

Thanks for the link, Nik, I liked what Gaiman had to say on the subject of a Sandman movie. Cross fingers, eh?
Of course, anyone reading Gaiman's work - particularly Sandman - would realise how all encompassing and forward thinking it is. Don't get me started on the Kindly Ones - parts read like an extremist feminist manifesto!

So - most of us are agreed then. Top movie. A fairytale - yep, a fairytale - beautifully told.

JB

In case you still think I was 'trashing' your review, I should say I posted exactly the same reaction, on the IMDb website on the 28th, the day I saw the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486655/board/nest/88273410

In case you still think I was 'trashing' your review, I should say I posted exactly the same reaction, on the IMDb website on the 28th, the day I saw the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486655/board/nest/88273410

<Added>

It's one of those forums where you just express your opinion and no one takes it personally.

It's one of those forums where you just express your opinion and no one takes it personally.

You don't get away with cries of misogyny and homophobia so lightly I'm afraid. Not when you're talking to a gay man and also about an artist I have the utmost respect for.

JB

I shouldn't have made so much of the non-PC aspects, I agree - after all, as Sarah says, that would apply to a lot of fantasy stories. Some people don't seem to notice these things or think they don't matter, and I'm sorry if mentioning them offends you. I hadn't heard of Neil Gaiman, but there are artists whom I respect and others don't. We all have different opinions and tastes. In any case, criticising the film is not the same as criticising the author of the novel. I would have understood more about the film's intentions if I had heard of him. I came to it cold and thought it was not a very good film for the other reasons I mentioned. It didn't work as well as, say, 'Shrek' or the Harry Potter movies. I think it had some good parts, but just didn't work as a whole. Perhaps it didn't do justice to the novel.

Sheila

I think it's a movie that is able to laugh at itself. Of course, liking it or not is a matter of personal taste and not really open for debate. I'm not saying you should like Stardust or are wrong for not doing so. I'm not going to discuss sexism in the fantasy genre either. Yes, I know, Red Sonja was a bit heavy handed slicing men to pieces left, right and centre but hey, we'll forgive her.

I personally didn't notice any non-PC aspects in Stardust. I don't think there were any to notice, and if there were, they'd have certainly been ironic. I do think one should be careful when supposing a work of art has been produced with an intentional 'hatred of women' in mind - which is what misogyny means by the way. Hatred. Not imbalance. Not gender stereotyping. Hatred. The intention, of course, is the only thing that matters to a rational person, not the reaction. We could overreact to just about anything if we always ignored the intention, as Sarah so humorously pointed out.

JB

I admit it was over the top to describe this film as 'misogynist junk', which I wouldn't have done in a review, and shouldn't have written in a response because it was too sweeping and isn't true. I apologise. I didn't say the film was homophobic but I felt faintly guilty at enjoying Robert de Niro's very camp performance, which some critics thought unbalanced the film. Ithought it was the best part but I can see what they mean.

I have read some reviews since and audiences are on the whole more positive than the critics . The comparisons with 'Narnia' and 'Lord of the Rings' don't really help. Thank you for making me aware of Neil Gaiman, whose website I looked at.

Sheila

It's ok, I realise you made the comment without intending any real offence but I suppose I find the subject itself interesting.
I wonder personally whether art suffers if we decide to become overly moralistic as an audience. That's not a pop at you, just a general observation. I have reacted to things before that I thought weren't all that positive, but in terms of 'campness' - well, go in any gay bar and I'm afraid in part that De Niro's depiction is fairly accurate. Not saying all gay men are camp and objects of fun, but many portray themselves in that fashion anyway - look at Graham Norton, Paul O'Grady etc - so could hardly be offended. The point for me was that the crew didn't care and accepted Captain Shakespeare as himself, and for kids at least, I think that's pretty positive.

JB

JB,
Funny you should mention misandry. I was thinking about that whilst pumping iron last night.
Power hungry Princes who will kill their own brothers to become King? Hardly a positive role model for boys.

Bring back Peter and Jane I say. They were a wholesome pair and wouldn't be caught messing around with this dark magic nonsense.

Azjale

<Added>

I was joking.
Missed Sarah's post when I skimmed early, but I think she has all the bases of offence covered.

To my mind, it just seems like you're focusing on a reaction to something without taking into account the full body of the theme.
The princes hardly come out of their murderous games on top, do they?
They are turned into ghosts and see how pointless it all is. The film is not advocating murder at all. Evil in this movie gets punished, as in all good fairytales. How is that not positive?

JB

Yes, I was watching Graham Norton last night and thinking along the same lines. I read his autobiography recently -'So Graham Norton', I think it was called and it occurs to me that campy gayness has a long and distinguished history. I enjoy Jonathan Ross's gay band line-up and am an ardent fane - or was - of Quentin Crisp and Joe Orton, both of whose autobiographies I've read. I think the latter,'Prick Up Your Ears' was a biography.

I was being too sensitive but the appearance of a moral agenda is only that. I'm not in some clean-up campaign or anything like the one Mary Whitehouse headed, although I wrote to complain about a bus advert recently. I blame it on teaching, where you have to decide pretty quick what you are going to allow and what not in the way of name-calling before it escalates and I suppose zero-tolerance is the safest option. If only my students had restricted themselves to such mild expressions as 'whoopsie'! NFMott's remark abouther son reminded me of a word my own kids used to bandy about when they were aged about ten. I didn't know what it meant, but I knew it wasn't good so I frowned just to be on the safe side. When I found out much later what it did mean I frowned even more.

Peter and Jane? Do you mean Janet and John?

Sheila

Definitely read Peter and Jane, but I've no idea where my parents got hold of them as no one else has heard of them.

I just googled Peter and Jane and it seems they were part of a Ladybird reading scheme,used up to 1980.

http://www.theweeweb.co.uk/ladybird/key_words_reading_scheme.php

The Janet and John books were first developed by a New Zealand couple and used in Primary schools in the 1950s, generally lampooned for giving a stereotypical view of family life.

Yes, they were considered harmless but as far as I was concerned totally unreal. It made one feel a bit guilty about not having a father who washed a car and a mother who stayed at home baking pies. I suspect a lot of children felt the same.

Sheila

Azjale, sorry, I did think you were joking, but then I wasn't sure. I do think a lot of fantasy is much more progressive now, but yes, in the past there has been a great amount of gender stereotyping in the genre. Live and learn though, eh?

JB

Peter

Jane

Here is Peter

Here is Jane

Here is Pat the dog

Woof

Remember it well

Still at least it encouraged us to hurry up and get to the real books with elves in?

'1,2,3 and Away' is worse - any intelligent child confronted with the first page says, 'cloud, triangle.' 'No dear, blue, blue.' And let's not forget Roger the Red Pirate

Sarah