To say I almost puked is an understatement, Mr. Lane's review was not only irresponsible, it also proved that men who have a problem with women in power take it out on them in any way they can.
I arrived home completely incensed and wrote the following letter to the editor:
"I was appalled to read Anthony Lane's chauvinistic review for Madonna's W.E. in which he makes it clear that he let his hormones and narrow mindedness get the best of him. Not only is the review itself an attack of its director as opposed to a smart deconstruction of the movie, but when Lane writes "what on Earth is the point of a Madonna product, in any medium, if it contains not a single orgy?", he makes it quite clear that not only is he unfamiliar with Madonna's work - he really should listen to her protest album "American Life" or the way she removes sex out of the equation in "Erotica" - Mr. Lane also makes it quite clear that he dislikes Madonna because he couldn't contain the sheer power of her artistic persona in his masturbatory fantasies."
Can you believe anyone would say that about an artist? Would Mr Lane suggest that Picasso's works were only limited to painting whores or that Truffaut only made movies about children? By reducing an artist to a stereotype of one of their many aspects isn's only disrespectful, it's utterly lazy as well. However Mr. Lane would probably never make such a comment if he were talking about David Lynch, Martin Scorsese or Terrence Malick, who despite being masters of the form, often revisit the same themes over and over. This reductive review truly made me sick, although what can you expect of someone who thought the best part in Albert Nobbs were Janet McTeer's "regal" breasts?
Am I right in being so offended by this sexist approach to Madonna's work? This comes in the light of a superb article posted in The Guardian which states that Madge's work is usually criticized because she plays in the boys' league and they hate it.
No comments:
Post a Comment