Film Friday: 3 Bad Scenes in Otherwise Enjoyable Movies

It's Been Some Years

Way back in 2011, I wrote about awesome scenes in two movies that were otherwise terrible. Six years passed, and in 2017, I discussed two movies that contain fantastic scenes, even if the flicks are otherwise merely passable. Four years later, I touched upon three movies that were, "Good," but did have one extra great scene. At the end of that post, I joked that in another four or five years I would possibly make a post talking about strangely bad scenes in movies that are, apart from those scenes, stellar. Well, almost five years later, I was, in fact, thinking about some movies I am a fan of but which have that one scene that threatens to bring the whole thing down. Let's discuss...

The Notebook

Even if it is argued by some to be, "Escapist fluff," I would argue that of any movie made from a Nicholas Sparks story, "The Notebook," is the best, and a damn fine flick in and of itself. The cast is killer, from Ryan Gosling (as Noah) to Rachel McAdams (as Allie), and James Marsden (Lou) as the guy who gets left for Gosling's character and is shockingly mature and understanding about it. Much of the movie has a framing device of an old man telling an older woman with dementia the story of how this couple in the past came together. It is obvious fairly early on he is telling their story, and that's sweet, but not in a cloying manner. Then, the movie has to go and screw it all up with an ending scene so cheesey-yet-kind-of-dark that you're better off going with the book's conclusion. 

Basically, the elder Allie freaks out and attacks Noah, but then calms down, remembers him, and they die at the same time, holding each other in their arms. That is certainly...something. As for how the book ends, Noah telling Allie the story helps give her a flicker of memory, and they spend the night together making love as they did all those passionate years ago despite their age and ailments. I'm not saying the film version of, "The Notebook," had to end with a scene of two elderly folks bumping uglies, but it is just a weird downer of a note to conclude an otherwise great movie.

Showgirls

Look, I am not going to argue that the movie, "Showgirls," is necessarily "Good," but it is extremely silly and entertaining. This summary of it works well if you don't want to sit through its madness. It also takes a hard left turn near the end (you may see a theme forming here) with an extremely unnecessary gang-rape scene. It seems to be in the film so that the protagonist (Elizabeth Berkley as Nomi) can learn her best friend Moly (Gina Ravera) has been sexually assaulted so that she has the motivation to go beat up the perp before leaving Vegas (as she was going to do, but now she also kicks some ass first). It just seems like lazy writing (and something we've seen often in movies/television/etc.) to want to go, "This character is extra evil because they're out here engaging in rape and we need the hero to stop them." Multiple folks involved with the movie continue to have strong feelings about the scene and how out-of-place it feels in an otherwise campy delight. My advice to anyone watching, "Showgirls," who could be triggered by such a brutal scene or who just doesn't want to suddenly go from a fun vibe to feeling like they are watching a horror movie is to fast-forward through that scene.

Pyscho

Yep, we're going to talk about a scene near/right at the end again. This time the studio system is more to blame than anyone involved in the creation of the movie itself, however. Throughout, "Psycho," the director, Alfred Hitchcock, twists and subverts our expectations. The person whom we think is the main character ends up killed before the first hour concludes. The young man who manages Bates Motel, Norman Bates, seems like he is trying to keep his murderous mother in check while guests stay, but it is revealed in a shocking climax that his mother is long dead and he is killing folks whilst dressed as her. Why is he doing this, though? Well, any possible mystery flies out the window when a psychiatrist is called to evaluate Norman after his capture and reveals it is a violent personality disorder where Norman truly thinks he is his mother. 

This moment is in the original book the film adapts, but Hitchcock felt it ground everything to a halt, providing an overly clinical explanation for all the preceding suspense and horror. He kept it in the movie to appease Paramount, however, as he'd already pushed a ton of boundaries regarding censors upset about a variety of the movie's content (from unmarried couples in bed, to the peephole, a toilet flushing, and the now-legendary shower scene). Hitchcock knew how to pick his battles, and if he had to spoon-feed audiences an info-dump at the end of his movie instead of leaving things up to interpretation so he could get it released, he was willing to do so. Damn, the movie biz in 1960 sounds a lot like 2026 in some regards! Debates persist decades later about how useful or unnecessary that scene is. Clearly, I feel the credits could've rolled the moment the cops nab Bates, leaving us viewers in a shocked stupor, but that's just me.

I Love Ya, Flaws and All

Even if "Showgirls," hits a speed bump 3/4 or so of the way through and the other two productions end in a manner that leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I'm still a fan of all these of these. We've got a camp classic, a cozy romance yarn, and a masterpiece of film. It shows that no matter what kind of movie you make, it can be awesome even if somebody made a questionable choice with the flick. Now, I'll think up what the theme should be when I do one of these in another four or five years. Perhaps three hilarious scenes in otherwise serious movies? I dunno, I've got time to mull it over.

Kickstarter to Ban any Adult-Styled Comics and Content in General After Making Millions From Them for Years

Kickstarter has been a popular spot for years to fund a project/idea. Comic creators love it because Kickstarter can help take an idea that could be too niche for a mainstream publisher and allow them to sell directly to their audience. This can, at times, include comics with a more adult leaning/focus. A number of these comics appeal to heterosexual readers, and some have LGBTQ themes that bigger publishers would shy away from (some comic companies are okay with sex, but only if it's hetero). Kickstarter has made tons of money off comic projects, many of them adult-leaning. Perhaps they feel they've made enough to turn their back on a lot of people, because Kickstarter released new and extremely detailed rules about mature/adult content. I'm talking bullet points about, "Not allowing visible nipples poking through clothing in a drawing," levels of prudishness. It’s not just comics, it is everything (so look out, edgy video-games).

Friend of the blog (and general friend), Mike Wolfer penned an open letter to Kickstarter online, and Bleedingcool shared it along with the thoughts of other creators who are quite enraged. Kickstarter grew into what it is off their backs and has decided to cast them aside now that they aren't needed. The given reason? A credit card payment processor company called Stripe has, over recent years, become extremely anti-adult-anything. They don't like processing payments for things that are outright porn or at all mature under the guise of they, "Get returned more," but this seems more like a weird religious/prudishness thing than anything else. Extreme levels of violence are fine, so feel free to chop a woman's head off in your comic, but don't you dare have someone consensually kiss her exposed nipple! There has been a rise of anti-sex/eroticism vibes due to conservatives gaining/stealing power, and oftentimes a lot of this is framed as, "Protecting children," even though lots of this adult material usually demands you prove you are--you know--an adult. Plus, I mentioned how anything LGBTQ that even hints vaguely at sex oftentimes finds itself censored a lot more than straight people bumping uglies, which adds an extra flavor of homophobia and transphobia to this shit sandwich Kickstarter's users are being fed.

If you don't want sexy comics in your life, don't back them on Kickstarter or read them. If you like comics that sometimes feature sex or even some nudity, then go find yourself some quality comics that provide such a thing. It should be as simple as that, but credit card processors, Kickstarter, and oftentimes politicians want to rob you of making that choice and having independence--not very patriotic, I'd say. This is quite a mess, and I am curious to see how it shakes out.

The Depressing Irony of Censoring Banned Books Week

Lani Kawahara oversees the young adult section at Kauai’s largest library in Hawaii. She set up a display celebrating Banned Books Week. Books have been banned in other countries and challenged throughout America for all kinds of reasons--political, religious, concerns about violent or sexual content, and so forth). The fact that there are books certain people don't want others to read shows the importance of freedom of speech, press, and so forth. This makes it incredibly ironic that Kawahara's display about banned books was censored. Yes, the Hawaii library system is celebrating, "Freedom to Read," week instead of Banned Books Week to avoid political ire.

Banning a week about banned books basically proves why a Banned Books Week is important, doesn't it? People want to censor a book because they don't like it challenges a politician, calls out a religion, shows a sexual orientation that, for some reason, offends them, or otherwise want to keep you from reading about something. We should keep books with differing views or content that might upset others in our libraries, bookstores, and so forth. If you don't agree with something, don't read it! Let the people who want to read about Captain Underpants do so (seriously, that book was challenged) and if, "To Kill a Mockingbird," makes you uncomfortable with its discussion of racism, that is the point! Censoring Banned Books Week goes to show just why we need it, clearly.