Been a while since I posted because honestly, I was social-media-ed out and couldn't think of anything witty or interesting to talk about. I blame the meds for this crappy allergy flare-up -- that prednisone is nasty stuff and it fuzzes my brain :( Anyhow, one highlight of the past month has been getting out of the house and going to a movie. Last one we wanted to see was the movie version of the excellent book, Warm Bodies by Isaac Marion (I talk about it more here). But alas, by the time we got our act together and made time to see it, the movie had disappeared from our local cinemas.
Hey, we're not too cut up over it; Warm Bodies will be just as great on the small screen at home, and I won't begrudge buying the DVD because from what I've heard, it's just as good as the book and one for the Keeper DVD shelf. But this time, with Star Trek Into Darkness, we were determined we weren't gonna miss out on the big-screen experience at the cinema. And frankly, it was everything I hoped it'd be :) Chris Pine! Zachary Quinto! (Kiwi) Karl Urban! Benedict Cumberbatch! In space! What's not to like?
Mind you, I must admit to severe doubts about the casting of Zachary Quinto as Spock before I saw the first movie. He made such an amazingly awful and chilling bad dude as Sylar in the TV series Heroes that I couldn't get past that at first. But I'm fast becoming a convert to this new incarnation of Spock. And gems like this Spock vs Spock vid definitely help :-)
But the reason for this particular post centers around a bit of flack Star Trek Into Darkness's director J.J. Abrams has copped for what people are calling a "gratuitous" scene featuring actress Alice Eve in her underwear. If you haven't seen the movie, Alice Eve plays Dr. Carol Marcus and there's a scene where she's stripping off to don her outside gear while explaining something to Kirk as he waits for her. She's told him to turn around while she changes... but of course Kirk can't help himself and sneaks a peek at her in her underwear. Of course she catches him peeking, too :)
Me? I don't think this scene was gratuitous. Or sexist -- as it's also been called. For me, it's wholly in keeping with Kirk's character that he wouldn't be able to resist peeking while a beautiful woman is getting changed. In fact, if he hadn't peeked, I'd have thought the writers were copping out and not being true to his character!
Interestingly, earlier on in the movie there's another brief scene that shows Kirk being interrupted by his comms unit while rolling round in bed with two alien women. We know he's a bit of a lady's man and unapologetic about it. That scene emphasizes that side of his character to the audience. And I find it interesting that no one seems to have too much of an issue with a bare-chested Kirk in that scene--at least, not to the extent of labeling it "sexist".
So is there a bit of a double-standard going on?
I'd be interested in your opinions about what constitutes "gratuitous" when it comes to showing the audience a character's foibles and traits in a movie.
I also found it interesting that when questioned about this so-called gratuitous underwear scene, Abrams said his piece, apologized, and then neatly changed the subject by bringing up the subject of a deleted scene featuring Benedict Cumberbatch taking a shower. Now I probably would have thought this scene a tad gratuitous, but I feel compelled to confess I wouldn't have minded at all if it'd been left in because hey, buff naked dude in a shower! Nothing like tossing in a bit of guy-candy as a distraction, right? I know, I know, Bad Maree ;-)
So any Benedict Cumberbatch fans out there? If you haven't already seen the infamous deleted shower scene, then this one's for you. The actual scene is 2.23s in if you want to cut to the chase :)