Did not this very film's immediate predecessor, Batman Returns, offer up the sight of Michelle Pfeiffer in one of the most objectifying leather catsuits that could ever be? So there's no harm in objectifying the male body just once or twice (crash zooms to bat-codpieces and bat-asscheeks!), and come nowhere remotely near redressing the entire culture of the masculine gaze, right?Ĭertainly not, and if a legitimately talented gay director wants to try it out sometime, I'll be first in line. Think about this way: for generations, comic books have depicted buxom women in excessively tight outfits. I am not here to bury the bat-nipples more than they have been already but to offer a defense. Plus, while Forever has bat-nipples, it lacks bat-aereolae, and perhaps that makes all the difference. ![]() Also, it is far, far worse, and since Batman Forever is merely not good, it's tempting to write off anything that's really terrible as the sole responsibility of the later movie. ![]() Both films were directed by Joel Schumacher, an out gay man, and both run headlong into a camp sensibility but the latter film is just so much campier. My suspicion is that this has happened because, and there's not really a delicate way of putting this, Batman & Robin is "gayer". Let us first deal with a misconception: there are nipples on the batsuit in Batman Forever, though this innovation is frequently held to have started with Batman & Robin, two years later.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |