Sheeni Sauders (Portia Doubleday) and Nick Twisp (Michael Cera) make the best of an afternoon in their trailer park.

Youth in Revolt‘s premise is a familiar one, with some unexpected twists along the way; (virginal, sweet, innocent Nick Twisp) boy meets (flaxen haired, ivory skinned, sexy, intelligent Francophile Sheeni Saunders) girl, boy falls for girl, girl plays with boy but has a much sexier/intelligent/athletic/accomplished boyfriend (who now of course becomes boy’s arch-nemesis by default), girl’s parents hate virginal sweet boy and prevent him from seeing girl, boy decides to fight for girl. By becoming bad. Very, very bad.

The rest of the plot is ridiculously complicated, but at the same time suprisingly believable for a love-struck teenage boy. But.. a lot of it was very… cringe inducing, not to say problematic and fucked up. Nick really wants to get the girl (or is it sex? sometimes the viewer is not quite sure), and goes to absurd lengths in his attempts to do so, including emotionally harassing his mother after her boyfriend dies, stealing and destroying vehicles, faking his own death, and last (but definitely least charming) lying to and emotionally manipulating not one, but two girls, including even drugging one of them.

Yeah.

But! The film is still worth critiquing. So let’s fast forward a bit through the film for the two things that really bothered me about Youth in Revolt. Nick has made his life at home with his mother toxic to the point that she sends him to live with his father, which suits Nick just fine because it is where Sheeni lives and goes to school. But! Turns out Sheeni’s parents have sent her to private school a few hours away. Bummer.

The only friend he makes at her former/his new high school is Vijay: smart, funny, and just as sexually frustrated as Nick is. Vijay “borrows” his grandmother’s car so they can go and visit Nick’s girlfriend and sexy roommate at Sexy French School. However, we don’t ever really understand why they are friends, other than for Nick to use him to get to Sheeni. We even make a joke about his being brown by insinuating illegal immigrant status (which, honestly, could be interpreted in one of two ways; one being racist and the other being a jab at dumb white people with a saviour complex). Sadly, this scene makes it seem as though since Harold & Kumar was successful, now all of these zany teenage comedies get a free pass for not giving any of the people of colour in their scripts any depth! Youth in Revolt would have been a far better film if his sidekick was actually a friends, as opposed to being the only person of colour in the entire film, used as a boring plot device.

Nick’s friend Vijay Joshi (Adhir Kalyan) ponder their next move

Secondly, there is this “alternative” girl who also studies at Sheeni’s Sexy French School whom Nick meets after she vomits in the bathroom. Nick decides to use this girl to start rumours about Sheeni’s boyfriend through flattery, banking on the fact that it’s insinuated that she suffers from an eating disorder, and is “alternative,” hence, is probably not used to male attention and of course desires it. Everything about his interactions with this character and her portrayal in the film, are just over the top messed up. To me, she seemed much more interesting and complex than Sheeni. And of course, Nick never considers her as anything other than someone he can use on his path to Get the Girl TM. And the Girl TM is the perfect rich white blonde girl… (but to be honest this is probably just me projecting my teenage insecure underdog feelings on the dirty scuzzy kind of punk kid instead).

In the end, what really got my goat me about this movie is that Nick is really an emotionally abusive asshole who gets everything he wants… and we’re supposed to LIKE him. And we kind of do! I kind of did! The movie was funny, it made me laugh, it was unexpected… but it was also pretty fucked up in many, many ways!

It is not without its redeeming qualities, though. One thing I did really like about the film is that Sheeni has Nick in the palm of her hand. She is the one who decides whether or not she is inclined to his affections, she is the one who is frank and honest and whether they are a couple or not, deciding whether or not they have sex. Sadly, that is something we see far too rarely in movies.

However, this refreshing dialogue of consent, agency and power on the part of Sheeni is not nearly enough to redeem this film from its other faults. Of the six female characters in this film, she is the only one treated with a shred of decency and respect. There are too many (ridiculously underutilized! and superbly acted!) side characters, which makes it feel fast-paced and entertaining, but the viewer just wants to spend more time with the funniest ones and kick Nick out of the way. Even François, his fictional alter ego, becomes someone we’d rather have around! There are too many loose ends by the time the film reaches its flimsy end, and there are too many problematic gender politics at play for me to wholeheartedly endorse Youth in Revolt. Part of me wonders if the fact that it instilled such vehement reprehension for the main character means the film was successful in its attempts at engaging the viewer in the story… which is what leads to me giving this memorable film a 2.5 as opposed to a 0. 2.5/5

Starring Dakota Fanning, Kirsten Stewart, Riley Keough. Directed by Floria Sigismondi, 2009.

Ah, the 1970s. Weren’t they great? David Bowie, the groovy threads, all-girl rock bands, second wave feminism… But then again, some second-wavers were pretty racist, and let’s not forget the Lavendar Menace. Actually… when you think about it? Maybe they weren’t all that great.

The Runaways is based on the true story of the all-girl rock band of the same name, which brought the world Joan Jett and Cherie Currie, back in the “good ol’ days” of the 1970s. In it, we witness some really interesting critiques of the rock scene at the time, which unfortunately aren’t all that outdated. We learn why the brand of “chick” rock the Runaways helped create was so important, but also how dramatically different it was from the Riot Grrl scene in the 90s was; the DIY punk ethic, this is not. All members of the band can actually play their instruments, sure, but lead singer Currie is picked solely based on her looks (or rather, her “look”). A product being packaged.

The strength of the film is definitely the take on teenage female sexuality, largely because it is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in a Hollywood film before. This is the story about a band of rocker chicks! And we don’t care about boys! We care about Joan, about Cherie, about their badass sexualities. And that’s the thing; none of that reductive boring heteronormative Hollywood shit. SPOILER ALERT! Joan and Cherie’s relationship is portrayed as a simple yet complicated professional partnership with lots of sexual tension… but never is it explicitly addressed or talked about by them, or by their other bandmates. They fuck, and that’s cool. Even in her other sexual adventures, Jett is portrayed as this man/woman-eating badass, whether it be on stage, after a show, or with a bandmate, but! she is never stuck with any kind of label; queer, or bisexual, or even slut… she just is who she is, seduces who she seduces, and we get to admire (or perhaps, aspire) to that level of bravado.

Early on in the film, we are exposed to exactly how hateable the band’s notorious producer Kim Fowley is, as he literally puts words in Cherie’s mouth and attempts to treat the band as his minions rather than as musicians or human beings. In fact, he’s easily the most misogynist character. But that’s what makes the story compelling and complex; the man so driven to create the world’s first major label all-girl rock band, singing lyrics like “I wanna be where the boys are/I wanna fight how the boys fight,” with band members who kick ass and take names, is largely created and managed by this… well, raging sexist douchebag.

However, The Runaways - artistically and story-telling style wise - really sits on the fence as to what genre it falls into. One minute it feels like it wants to be art-house cinema, with vague scene transitions, unexplained scenes and out of focus shots, and the next minute it is toeing the (pretty tired) “rock biopic/period piece” line. The treatment of drug abuse and excess is done beautifully on the visual side, but simultaneously it isn’t gritty enough. It ends up looking strangely glamourous - stranger still given the fact that Currie was 15 when she joined the band and her exposure to drugs and alcohol lead to a life-long battle with addiction.

Dakota Fanning as Cherie Currie in The Runaways (Sigismondi, 2010) (the runaways film still)

That said, even with the stylized drug/alcohol scenes, it isn’t really all that visually stimulating as a movie. Given that it is (Montreal’s own) Sigismondi’s first full-length feature, I suppose those factors aren’t entirely unsurprising. I really do hope that Sigismondi takes up fiction for her next film. I think her craft and style would really shine through in a more free or even fantastic setting.

But, overall, there is more good than bad to be said of the Runaways. Fanning and Stewart deliver stellar performances and make for a captivating and empowering movie about young women who try to live their lives looking for adventure and striking a balance between fantasy and reality. Given the fact that these two young actresses are better known for their (pretty bland, pretty anti-feminist) characters in the Twilight franchise, I think audiences of all ages and tastes can give these two actresses a lot of credit for trying out these two rock icons for size.

While it could be interpreted as feminist thanks to the strong female leads, it still holds an interest for mainstream audiences and doesn’t hit you over the head with the “omg the rock scene was so sexist in the 70s! and now it’s perfect!” Instead, it makes you feel even more excited for the band when they make it, and the fact that everyone can sing along to a Joan Jett song, the person who was told that “girls don’t play electric guitars” back in 1977, and all the more exciting. The real power of the film lies with the true events that inspired it, and it does so without exploiting real people’s lives. It’s exciting to think that fans of Twilight might watch this film just because Stewart is in it, and will end up discovering an important part of women in rock history, and hey, might even be inspired to pick up an instrument. Now that would be really badass.

3.5/5 stars

Further reading:
B-Sides: Suzi Quatro

Cherie Currie’s interview on Q

The Runaways official website

Hi! I’m julia caron. I’m a 24 year old queer person living in Québec City. In my years, I’ve worked as a newspaper editor, factory worker, used bookstore clerk, and film society director, to name a few. More recently, I’ve been blogging about fashion from a critical feminist perspective at my blog, a l’allure garconnière, since 2009. I’m really excited to join the ranks of Shameless, as I’ve been a reader for years and am excited to shake things up.

Here at Shameless, I’ll be taking care of Film Fridays on a bi-monthly basis. Seeing as one of my favourite hobbies is snuggling up on the couch with my best friends and a big bowl of popcorn and watching our favourite movies, I think the shoe will fit quite nicely.

I gotta say, this will be an interesting ride for me. I recently realized that most of my favourite films hardly pass the Bedchel test, and I am often drawn to men’s stories. I’ve been wondering how my (relatively radical) politics are reflected in my love of movies and my tense relationship with Hollywood. Which movies appeal to me, and why? What makes a film feminist, or even at the more basic level, what kind of movies do we want to see and make as feminists? I’m really excited to start conversations about films with you here at Shameless, to find where we agree and disagree, and what we want and need from the world of film.

So you can get to know me better, here are a handful of my favourite films in no particular order, some of which you can watch online by clicking the links:
XXY (Puento, 2007)
Pandora’s Box (Pabst, 1929)
Alphaville (Godard, 1965)
La Jetée (Marker, 1968)
The Royal Tenenbaums (Anderson, 2001)
Meshes of the Afternoon (Derren, 1943)
Kanehsatake: 270 years of resistance (Obomsawin, 1994)
le chat dans le sac (Groulx, 1965)
Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)

But! if you haven’t seen (or even heard of) many of these films, have no fear! I’m going to try to focus on current movies, ones that are just released for rental or are still in the movie theatres, with a Retro Film Friday thrown in from time to time for good measure. And I want to know what you are watching, too. If you have any requests of films you’d like to see reviewed, send me an email! juliacaron AT gmail DOT com.

I recently had one of my videos muted by YouTube in response to a “Content ID Match.” This two minute movie about a trip my friends and I took to Coney Island used “Cumbia En Do Menor” by Lito Barrientos for a soundtrack. This home movie was created for personal entertainment (Look Ma! I went to the beach!) and not for profit. However, because it “may have content that is owned or licensed by Warner Music Group,” it was determined to be in violation of copyright laws and muted.

I suppose I should count myself lucky that Warner Music Group didn’t sue me for all I was worth (which is not much). As it is, I am guilty until proven innocent. WMG was not required to provide any evidence that they either own or license that song, nor were they expected to prove that I was impacting their commercial business or had gone beyond fair use. If I wanted to dispute the claim, I would have to do all the work, and open myself up to the full wrath of the WMG legal department.

How did we let this happen? How did we let corporations take such control of our collective creative output that the public domain has become a joke, with copyrights extended ad infinitum, and robot crawlers searching the internet for unlicensed songs in home videos (Look Ma! I went to the beach… in silence!)? Why are we letting these corporations stifle our creativity by making art illegal or prohibitively expensive?

In answer to these questions, I offer Open Source Cinema, an open source documentary film about copyright.

(more inside…)

I hope everyone is enjoying the new year! I’m usually ‘anti’ any sort of holiday, even if it’s not religious, but the fresh start of a new year is quite tantalizing. Anyone have any good resolutions to share?

Also, here’s a video review of the film Provoked:

Watch Provoked for free online, here.

Order the book, here.

It’s finally Friday, and that means another edition of my bi-weekly video review!

Comment and rate it, even if you hate it!

“Racism (and Misogyny) in the Elevator” video:

This has been my hardest film review so far. I think it had something to do with my newfound addiction to the very unhealthy, yet very sexy, Twilight book series.

What started as research became something so much more….

Ide Cyan’s post is available here.
Nabil’s post is available here.

* I apologize in advance for any incorrect name pronunciations or sex/gender assignments

Staying in tonight? I know I am!

Maybe you’re even looking for some movie advice, too?