Was The "Feminist" Furor Over Mad Max: Fury Road Fabricated?

"Don't worry, we'll save humanity using our feminine wiles!"

Sure looks like one to me!

Sounds about right!

Yep!

"I am woman! Hear me explode!"

"How dare you call MY movie feminist, you chauvinistic bastard!"

Salon.com: one of the "feminized" sites that praised MM.

You can also take my balls since I'm NOT using them anymore!

Yes, we ALL win! Especially the feminists!

This is the Mad Max I prefer! "Feminism" NOT included!

Return Of Kings writer Aaron Clarey stepped into a hornet's nest when he dared wrote how the film Mad Max: Fury Road might—and I say might—just be a (gasp!) feminist film and encouraged men to not go see this cinematic piece of outright feminist propaganda. Media outlets like The Huffington Posts and The Daily Beast furiously (pardon the pun!) condemned Mr. Clarey, accusing him of being a (double gasp!) misogynist and such. This in spite of the fact that both the top stars of Mad Max Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron (or, more appropriately, Charlie Theron and Tom Hardy!) both called MM a feminist movie. Plus the film's director George Miller—who, of course, directed the original Mad Max—hired none other than the author of The Vagina Monologues Eve Ensler as a consultant on the film. Not only that, but Miller herself came out and admitted—sort of—that he had in fact directed a feminist type film.

What I found most intriguing about the controversy is that the controversy went from “How dare they call Mad Max a feminist movie!” to “How dare they criticize Mad Max for being a feminist movie!” In other words, these sites claimed Mad Max wasn't a “feminist” movie while at the same time extolling its “feminist” virtues. Also, in all the articles I read addressing the controversy, the only source of the boycott was Mr. Clarey's article. There was no other mention of any other so-called Men's Rights Activist or any specific MRA group attached to said boycott. I mean, one would think that if this boycott by those damnable MRAs were as widespread as the media led everyone to believe, there would be at least a couple of other names and/or organizations attached to said boycott. But that wasn't the case. So either all the writers of these articles bashing the boycott were either misinformed or the whole entire controversy was little more than a fabrication to help sell movie tickets and/or pushing a feminist agenda.

I choose the latter.

Honestly, would this really surprise anyone, including all the feminized commentators, both female and male, who lost their minds over ROK's boycott of Mad Max? I mean, I can just imagine someone in the movie studio's marketing department finding Aaron Clarey's ROK article about Mad Max and they sent out a few strategically-placed links in the comments section in feminized sites such as HuffPo and The Daily Beast and presto! Instant controversy! Let's face it, moviegoers by & large weren't clamouring for another Mad Max movie the way they were for, say, another Star Wars movie, thanks in no small part to star Mel Gibson's by-now-infamous drunken anti-Semitic tirades and/or his over-the-top crazy phone calls to his baby mama. This was actually one of the reasons, along with 9/11 and Heath Ledger's death (who was initially slated to play Max), why it reportedly took so long for director George Miller to make his latest Mad Max film. So, when Mad Max: Fury Road was finally completed & released, he needed publicity as all films need. And, in today's politically-charged feminized climate, what better way to help publicize a film like this than to insinuate its feminized message and bash anyone who dares question said feminized message (even though it didn't have a feminized message!).

For the record, I myself have not yet seen the latest Mad Max flick nor am I really clamouring to see it, controversy or no. So I can't really say for sure whether or not I personally feel it's a feminist movie. However, judging from what I read about the film (including from those that actually praised the movie who, while they condemned the boycott, conceded that indeed it was a feminist movie), there is indeed a case to be made for Mad Max's feminist credentials. Of course, George Miller or any movie director is perfectly free to make any type of film they wish. But, what I'd like to know is, if Miller wanted to make a female-driven action film, why didn't he just go ahead and make one? Just drop the Mad Max character entirely, especially since Max was apparently more of a secondary character in this film, and make Charlize Theron's character the main star? Of course, the answer to that may be because female-driven action films have a rather spotty track record at the box office. For every Thelma & Louise (which was an apparent ripoff of an earlier B-movie called Assault Of The Killer Bimbos) there are at least a half-dozen Tank Girl's (which bombed so bad that it virtually killed actress Lori Petty's movie career). Even Charlize Theron's attempt at headlining an action flick—i.e. the live-action version of the cult cartoon Aeon Flux—bombed at the all-important box office. And the reason for that is, for all the talk of feminism and such, moviegoers, both men and women, don't want to see women in the dominant role in action films. They want to see the men swoop in and rescue everyone, including—and especially—the girl, similar to the way they want things to work out in real life. Again, in spite of all the cinematic feminist talk, men want to imagine themselves as the rescuer and women want to imagine themselves the ones being rescued. Period.

At the end of the day, it's all about money, feminism or no. And, while the movie will undoubtedly make a profit (at the time of this writing, it has reached the $100 million mark), it still didn't make the big splash at the all-important box office George Miller and the movie studio were obviously hoping for, which, like I implied earlier, is what I believe really drove the controversy. I mean, it didn't even reach number one on the box office charts the weekend it was released as it made about half the money that the flick Pitch Perfect 2 which did debut at number one.

Of course, the thing I found most hypocritical of all about the whole insipid controversy surrounding Aaron Clarey's Mad Max article—which even Clarey himself said was ridiculous—was that the same feminists/feminist sympathizers who scoffed at the idea of a boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road by the apparently imaginary MRAs were the same ones who all but advocated a—that's right—boycott of the Clint Eastwood film American Sniper about military sniper Chris Kyle months earlier—many of whom hadn't even seen the film—because not only they claimed it “promoted” the Iraqi war but that it also promoted—again, that's right—masculinity. And we all know just how much the feminists and their sympathizers really hate that!

Besides that, one thing the feminized reviewers of Mad Max: Feminist, uh, I mean Fury Road failed to address is that, if Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa was so strong and whatnot as said feminized reviewers insisted she was, why then did she need the “help” of Max to begin with? Just saying!

A sidenote: Here's the link to the Aaron Clarey article from "anti-feminist" site Return Of Kings for anyone who is interested in reading the piece that started all the Mad Maxine, uh, I mean Mad Max feminist furor to begin with: http://www.returnofkings.com/63036/why-you-should-not-go-see-mad-max-feminist-road

Here's a video review (from YouTube) from someone (yes, a man!) who actually watched Mad Max: Fury Road and said yes, it WAS a "feminist" movie!

And, while we're at it, here's Aaron Clarey's video response to all the critics of his article:

Fifty Shades Of Wayne (Batman/Fifty Shades Mashup Trailer)

Thanks the stars Ben Affleck WASN'T in this trailer!

RELIGULOUS

Religulous is comedian/talk show host Bill Maher's documentary--or mockumentary, whichever way you want to look at it--about organized religion. Anyone who knows anything at all about Bill Maher knows he's most definitely NOT a "fan" of organized religion, and he most definitely holds NOTHING back in this film. In the film, he targets pretty much all of the major religions, including Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and, his seemingly favorite target, Christianity. About three-fourths of the film consists of Maher interviewing various "religious" figures and mocking their "beloved" religions to their faces. Some take it in stride while others are quite noticeably upset at Bill's mockery; like, for instance, towards the beginning of the film where Bill is challenging the members of a little--and, no, I'm NOT making this up!--Truckers Chapel and one of the members expresses his disdain at said mockery of his "religion" and kindly walks himself right out of the church. (At one point during the film, Bill himself walks out of an interview after he gets rather annoyed at this rabbi who blatantly contradicts himself to Maher.) At times during the film Maher speaks directly to the camera and talks about the "questionable" parts of various religious stories; like, for instance, when he compares what he calls the "similarities" between the stories of Egyptian deity Horus to that of Jesus Christ. (This drew some heavy criticism from "Christian" scholars, as one might have expected.) Overall, Religulous will no doubt play well to Bill Maher fans. Religious types, of course, might take "issue" with it. I actually started to feel kind of sorry for some of the interviewees as Bill was blatantly mocking them, but then I recalled all those times one of these "religious" types would come up to me and denounce ME for not "believing" as they do and kindly inform me that I was going to you-know-where, so whatever feelings of empathy I may have had for some of these people quickly went away as Bill was throwing some of their sanctimonious BS back at them. (This, of course, doesn't include all those times a Jehovah's Witness or two would show up at my front door and bug the hell out of me about their "religion" and such.) And, if you haven't figured it out already, I, like Maher, am NOT what you'd call a "fan" of religion, organized or otherwise, so I didn't really take "issue" with Religulous. Actually, I thought the most interesting parts of the film were the deleted scenes that were featured on the DVD, which features mostly more interviews that for whatever reason weren't included in the final film. I actually think Maher should re-release the movie with the deleted scenes included on video. (I know that would REALLY make these "religious" types happy!)

Here's the aforementioned Truckers Chapel scene from Religulous (from YouTube): 

WHY I WON'T BE SEEING AMERICAN SNIPER

The movie poster of American Sniper.

The book cover of American Sniper.

Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle.

Chris Kyle holding a copy of his book.

American Sniper is the movie based on the "autobiography" of the late Iraqi war veteran Chris Kyle who was deemed--I think by Chris himself--"the most lethal sniper in U.S. history." The movie was directed by Clint Eastwood (yes, THAT Clint Eastwood!) with actor Bradley Cooper (of The A-Team fame) playing Kyle. The movie has even garnered a few Oscar nods. With all that said, I will not--I repeat--NOT be going to see American Sniper. Why? Well, for one, I am SO sick & tired of being told who to "admire" in this country. I mean, I can make up my OWN mind who I want to "admire" and/or hold up as a hero. And, though I feel sorry for Kyle's family (who was shot to death at a shooting range along with a companion by an ex-Marine reportedly suffering from PTSD named Eddie Ray Routh), I can't muster up admiration for someone who was a trained killer and, above all, someone who publicly boasted of being said trainer killer and who propped his own self up as a hero. I know, I know there'll be those--mostly on Fox (Non) News!--who'll undoubtedly denounce me as being "unpatriotic" and how I don't "support" the troops by not lending my "admiration" of Chris Kyle. To which I say is complete & utter BULLSHIT! I mean, there are countless veterans who acted just as "heroically" as Mr. Kyle and even more so but we'll NEVER hear their names much less their stories. That's, of course, partly because a number of veterans don't wish to "exploit" their war experiences. There's also the countless number of veterans who are languishing away at veteran's hospitals--remember the controversy about the shoddy medical treated of military veterans at VA hospitals like Walter Reid?--and who are suffering from PTSD and who are homeless--an estimated one-third of our nation's homeless are in fact veterans--or who have committed suicide. You get the picture. So, I ask, what makes Chris Kyle's "story" more "heroic" than any other veteran's? Going back to the movie, the film itself is probably a "good" movie, at least technically so, and I'm sure Bradley Cooper did a pretty good job portraying Kyle (he, at the time of this writing, has garnered an Oscar nod for his role in the film). But, there again, I have absolutely NO interest in seeing this apparently overly-jingoist film. (I also felt the same about that torture porn-fest Zero Dark Thirty.) In any other context, and I know I'm going to get flak for saying THIS one, Chris Kyle would probably be regarded as a serial killer, you know what I mean? Once again, for those who would denounce me--once again, on Fox (Non) News!--as being an unpatriotic troop-hater, Chris Kyle boasted in his book how much he "loved" killing and how much "fun" he thought his "job" was. Writing of the Iraqis in general, he wrote, "I hate the damn savages," adding, "I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis." He also stated how he knew without a single shred of doubt how EVERYONE he shot was a "bad guy," including the women AND children he apparently "loved" to shoot. Hell, he even bragged about murdering Hurricane Katrina looters (although that was never verified). On top of all that, he also reportedly boasted of looting the homes of Iraqi families in Fallujah. So, once more, I ask the question: WHAT IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK IS SO DAMN "HEROIC" ABOUT CHRIS KYLE? AND WHY IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK SHOULD I PAY GOOD MONEY TO SEE A FILM GLORIFYING HIS MURDER-LOVING ASS? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY ARE WE GIVING CHRIS KYLE MORE "ATTENTION" THAN ANY OTHER VETERAN WHO WOULD NEVER BOAST ABOUT HAVING TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE AN "ENEMY" OR NOT? Well? I also can't for the life of me understand why Clint Eastwood would choose to make a movie glorifying THIS (so-called) "hero" after he made what was deemed an "anti-violence" film the western Unforgiven (but then, he WAS Dirty Harry, so there you go!). Also, I must say I find it more than a little ironic--and, yes, hypocritical!--that the very same right-wingers who've been Chris Kyle's BIGGEST cheerleaders have routinely condemned the "violence" of, say, rap music. Just saying! In any case, Chris Kyle's life AND death prove the old adage to be VERY true: You live by the sword, you definitely die by the sword! And if THAT makes me an "unpatriotic traitor" or whatever in the eyes of the Republican-ass-kissing D-Bags who've propped THIS guy up as some type of damned superhero, then so be it. So be it! A sidenote: Chris Kyle, before his death, claimed on shows like--where else!--The O'Reilly Factor how he punched out Jesse Ventura (yes, THAT Jesse Ventura!) at a bar because he, according to Kyle, was "bad-mouthing" the military and the government in general (and this surprised him WHY?). He even mentioned the "fight" in his book, although he didn't mention Ventura by name. Ventura ended up suing even after Kyle's death and wound up winning in part because of the reported "inconsistencies" in the witnesses accounts of the alleged incident, including from Chris's very own testimony. So, again I ask, if this part of Kyle's book is (allegedly) false, how the hell am I supposed to "believe" the REST of his book?

Here's a clip of Jesse Ventura discussing his case against Chris Kyle on Piers Morgan's now-defunct CNN talk show: