Posted on 05/05/2015 6:39:50 AM PDT by C19fan
A couple of years back, I had the pleasure of conducting a sit-down interview with filmmaker Joss Whedon for Newsweek magazine. The occasion was his post-Avengers passion project, Much Ado About Nothing—an impeccably staged and delightfully droll riff on the Shakespeare classic filmed with a cast of pals over 12 days at Whedon’s Santa Monica home. The experience was, according to Whedon, a spiritual cleansing of sorts; a respite from the drudgery of assembling a gazillion-dollar superhero epic that reminded him why he fell in love with visual storytelling in the first place. And, like many film and television projects in the Whedon canon, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Dollhouse to his unproduced Wonder Woman screenplay, it featured a ballsy, no-nonsense heroine at its center.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
What is so wrong with her regretting what was done to her?
couldn’t say...but I’m getting damn tired of ballsy super heroines in movies...the kind that can dispose of two 200 pound men at a time, all the while applying makeup and making breakfast for her kids...
Womyn don’t regret anything! It’s full bore kill and destroy at all times!
Weird.
All of it.
(Except Whedons’s Much Ado About Nothing, which Shakespeare fans will find modestly entertaining. )
“What is so wrong with her regretting what was done to her?”
Well, if you see the scene in question, what people really are objecting to is that she characterizes herself as a “monster” because she is infertile, as if it is equivalent to Banner being the Hulk. There are probably a couple different ways to interpret the dialogue there, but it is a pretty strange and awkward scene.
I think that when she refers to herself as a monster, she is referring to what the KGB has turned her into, not that she is infertile.
Wow...talk about making an issue where there isn’t one.
Men are men, and women are women - why do people like this author try to blur the lines? I think Natasha’s character is well-placed in the MCU, and developed to a new level in Avengers 2.
She does not characterize herself as a monster because she was sterilized but because she was trained to be an assassin and has killed hundreds if not thousands of people in that capacity. That is reason why she joined SHEILD, to try to make up for the monstrous things she had done as an assassin. This is the defining motivation of the character in all the films she has been in (and in the comics), and that anyone can miss what is so patently obvious explains why reality TV is so popular.
Isn’t this kind of like Kenny complaining about Trey Parker and Matt Stone killing him all the time?
So in Jizzabel feminist land, equating the inability to have children with your value as a female and mate is a total no-no. Also, even mentioning the fact that this traditional paradigm is thought and felt by millions is offensive to them.
But then again remember, this is one of those rags that props up Lena Dunham as the "new girl" to look up to and a whole host of other blue pill fallacies.
Sort of.
The sterilization was part of a “graduation ceremony” from her assassin school. So it was voluntary.
She was expressing sympathy to Banner (who is pretty emotionally f’d up, as we all know) because she too had voluntarily subjected herself to a medical procedure that altered the nature of her being and turned her into something destructive. I actually thought it was an effective and well done scene. Especially since it’s the emotional bond she develops with Banner that helps keep the Hulk under control.
And, in seeing the trailers my original thought was that she was just using honeypot tradecraft - deliberately and cynically manipulating Banner so the Hulk could be kept under control. Altho that sort of thing would have been consistant with the Black Widow character from the comics ( and from the other movies, remember how she interrogated both that Russian general AND Loki in The Avengers) I was glad that there WAS a real emotional bond between them. It’s going to make the Phase III movies they’re in better, IMHO.
Yeah, people are reading WAY too much into things. Banner says (in essence) ONE of the reasons they couldn’t be a couple is that he couldn’t give her children. She admits that she couldn’t have a child either. It’s a shortcoming that they both have and one more thing that is a similarity. She has been turned into a “monster” not because she was sterilized, but the sum of what was done to her and why.
'Loved it!
An article about Whedon’s universe, and no mention of Firefly? *spit*
‘Daily Beast’...I stopped reading right there. All of us should...
“She does not characterize herself as a monster because she was sterilized but because she was trained to be an assassin and has killed hundreds if not thousands of people in that capacity.”
Well, as I said, you could probably interpret it a couple different ways, but she brings up the topic of her sterilization in response to Bruce talking about his “issues” and then immediately after, she makes the “monster” comment, so that is how a lot of people are taking it.
You know I must be a dunce, I saw this movie over the weekend and liked it, not as much as the first Avengers movie but it was pretty good.
I just didn’t see what this article was referring to, it’s and escapist movie not a movie on social issues and trying to put that into one is a bit ridiculous.
I think Black Widow is a great character and I am sorry, as a male, I think she is Smoking Hot.
HULK SMASH!
No...there is only one correct way to interpret it. The way as evidenced by her overwhelming character motivations that the movie and comics hit one over the head with constantly or the feminist/metrosexual way, that makes no sense in motivations and context of the character but allows feminists/metrosexuals to get “offended”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.