And I use the past tense in connection with "cable TV." I hung in there with Federated of Morris for a long time before that company itself bailed on cable TV. After that there was no hope for me restoring it. Our own city manager Blaine Hill said cable TV in small towns was "dodgy."
Man, these non-local outfits will do end runs to wring $ out of you. "End run" is a generous term that entered my mind. Today I have a laptop and the service is with Federated. A local office where you can talk to someone who has a pleasant Midwestern accent! Not much of that left, it seems.
And so these thoughts are prompted by the movie "Cherry 2000." Only recently did I have the opportunity to watch this very intriguing movie all the way through. Back when I "surfed" for something decent to watch on TV, I caught snippets. I'm so thankful I have now had the opportunity to watch the whole thing.
"Cherry 2000" was made in 1987. The sci-fi imagination could not be better. The plot is ingenious. This is not to say I'd give the whole thing an A-plus. Here's a question: is the movie misogynistic or not? Back in 1987 you could find basically no one who was familiar with the term "misogyny." Just like "kerfuffle." Our language evolves just like our overall society.
Part of the movie is dripping with misogyny. It jumps out at you. The protagonist in movie is desperate to replace his - what amounts to - his "sex robot." A more generous description might be "emotional companion robot" but I sure saw it in more raw terms.
This element of the plot totally underscores the "objectification of women." Such a thing basically defines misogyny. I suppose a woman could seek the equivalent with a male robot. But it's easier to sell the plot with a guy who in movie happens to be a quite handsome, dashing guy by conventional standards.
Back in the pre-digital primitive times, society did not really dispute the conventional standards. Our society was hush-hush on gay tastes. Face it, there was an ideal for attractive-looking women. So the guy in movie, our hero, has a robot that is quite nice-looking. He is making out with her on the floor in a scene in which he obviously seeks sexual stimulation. As a heterosexual I know about such things.
The sink with dish soap overflows because "the two" are distracted.
So the robot gets wet. Short-circuits or whatever. We hear the funny sounds and she's "dead." Must have been an older model. No replacement readily available. Don't we all experience this when we have something that breaks down or needs a part and we can't get it done? I recently asked about a new small bulb for a desk lamp that I got at Eul's many years ago. I'd hate to admit how many years ago. Actually I'm not very good at estimating that. The years turn into a blur when you're 70. Eul's itself is gone, is history.
So I inquired at a different store and am told the bulb I'm asking about is no longer made. Cheez so I have to get a new table lamp? And will the new lamp be as effective for what I am doing?
My little discussion here is pretty innocent, right? A table lamp? And this sort of thing could arise with all sorts of products. But a sex robot? It might have seemed the stuff of futurism back in 1987. I was 32 years old. Are there any tech innovations that even surprise us anymore? We are snowed with news about all the new stuff. And it all makes life seem so complicated.
Sex robots? They are actually a reality today. Shock value is probably nil in our fascinating world that includes unlimited free porn. Actually I think the preferred term now is "adult videos."
When I was a young adult, I heard about "inflatable dolls." How primitive compared to today!
Dynamic heroine
I should return to the question about misogyny in the movie "Cherry 2000." There's the very non-misogynistic element of the heroine who is so ingenious and athletic in helping the protagonist get what he wants. Hey, the old model of his preferred robot. A little more dramatic than seeking a new bulb for a table lamp at the hardware store.
The guy, in order to realize his objective, has the very difficult task of getting through a no man's land to get to where there's a "dump" of sorts that would have his "dream girl." He could unzip the covering, implant a little disc and then she'd come alive for him. In fact, the most fascinating scene in the movie is where this exactly happens.
The guy and his guide made it through the incredibly dangerous "obstacle course" to get to that scene. So dangerous it was quite implausible, but as moviegoers we are supposed to overlook the implausible stuff. We can rationalize that it's a dream or fantasy tale maybe. The woman guide confronted all risks and got her "client" through. So it's time to go home. Well that sure isn't easy either. It would have been like Homer's "The Odyssey."
The two are in a small beat-up plane that they had discovered. The crisis is that it won't get off the ground with the weight of three persons. Someone had to go. At first the guide feels it's her duty to get off. So she does. Doomed? We might assume she'd use her miraculous savvy to survive. But the movie never gets there. The protagonist now turns the plane around to pick her up, rescue her. My, he has to discard his new female robot, the "Cherry 2000."
He yells at the guide to get in plane. The woman is amazed because the Cherry 2000 "was the whole point" of the trek. And the man is jettisoning her. The man implores "she (or it) is just a robot!"
The guide gets back on plane with gunfire already around them. The story? Well, the man has fallen in love with his guide and was willing to sacrifice the Cherry 2000. He tells the robot to "get me a Pepsi" and then she's gone. The movie ends with the guy and the guide kissing. Triumph of real love!
Much as I was fascinated by the movie, I could cite some issues. Some of the violence is what I'd call "gratuitous." The obstacle course for the trek was so violent and full of risk, it could not be believed on any terms. So maybe spin that it's a fantasy. Well OK, the movies sometime invite us to do that. I would guess movie producers lose sleep over whether audiences can overlook implausibility issues.
I think "Cherry 2000" could have become at least a cult classic. The weaknesses I cited may have hurt, along with the elephant in the room misogyny. Overall I was pleased with the movie and consider it to be quite impressive sci-fi, albeit a little too fantastical.
 |
| Melanie Griffith |
Critic reviews were mixed. I think more critics should have given the movie a break.
When you get right down to it, you can't beat a rich sci-fi imagination. I grew up on such comic books!
- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment