Rebuttal Numero Dos - Rest of the Gang

Since the discussion of Lorna's Silence owned my ass for three days after I posted my "Misogny Ain't Just a River in Belgium" critique, I needed to take a break before fulfilling my promise of replying to all critical comments. But now I'm back and ready to roll.

Since it's hard to respond to individuals via the comment box set-up, I've cut and pasted their messages here and responded one by one. Once again, thanks to all who took the time to share their thoughts.

Commenters notes are in italics. My responses aren't.

SPOILER ALERT, AS USUALLY

Alejandro Adams said...
The first thing I'd say to "MD'A" is that "misogynist" is a noun. You could say, "...the film itself is A misogynist" or "...the film itself is misogynistic," but "...the film itself is misogynist" totally closes my mind to the rest of what you're saying because the phrase doesn't qualify as English. And, plus, it aggravates the hell out of me.

And to the crazy bitch who runs this website, all I can say is: your review perfectly demonstrates the reason that women should not be allowed to write film reviews--or even watch films at all, for that matter. (And now I suppose you'll try to pin the "misogyny" label on this comment...? What sad little people you are. Women, I mean.)

Nictate: OK. That wasn't a critical comment, but to Alejandro I must say "Thanks for cracking me up, dude."

Private Joker said...
I didn't like it either, but it sure isn't misogynist. That just misses the point. For me, it lacks everything that made L'Enfant so incredible (that film's efficiency in storytelling, whereas this one says only a little with a lot of plot) and veers towards everything that made The Son such a piece of shit.

The Dardennes have been all over the map. Brilliant (L'Enfant), Pretty good (La Promesse, Rosetta), awful (The Son), and now mixed & disappointing. It's weird how they keep making almost the same film and to such varying degrees of success or failure.

Nictate: Great to hear your thoughts on the Dardennes other work, Private J. I look forward to finding out where I fall among those who love/hate The Son, Rosetta and The Child.

You state that the film "sure isn't misogynistic." My main complaint with the feedback I've been getting is people stating that the film isn't misogynistic like it's an open and shut case with no room for discussion or interpretation. If Lorna's Silence impacted me in that way, then it *is* a misogynistic film in my *individual* experience. Your opinion is that it's not, mine is that it is.

What I'm saying is I *can't* be wrong in stating a personal opinion about a piece of cinematic art. I can have an *unpopular opinion*. I can have a *conflicting opinion* with everyone else who has seen the film and even the filmmakers themselves. My critique may be called an *ill-informed opinion* for various reasons that I'm happy to hear about. But since I'm an amateur film buff with the very small soap box of this blog, I don't have the journalistic responsibilities of professional critics who might have to filter some of their personal reactions or feel the need to measure the possible firestorm the use of a certain word might set off in their readerships.

And I don't think I've missed the point at all. Because of focusing on this misogyny point, this film suddenly has more meaning and worth in my world -- it has me thinking and discussing fascinating things with smart cinephiles like yourself. Suddenly a film I would've otherwise forgotten an hour after seeing it has become unforgettable for me. Pretty damn amazing.

Victor Morton said...

Nictate: Victor, I'll respond to your comments one by one:

VM: I don't even think you need to have seen, say, THE CHILD, to realize that playing the sex card is silly.

Nictate: Well, I don't even think you need to have seen, say, any other movie ever made, to bring up the topic of gender issues in a film. By referring to my critique as "playing the sex card," you are dismissing my point as some kind of manipulative tactic. While I knew using the word misogyny would rile some people up, I did not chose to use it for those reasons. I chose to use it because it described the film as I saw it. I don't take that word lightly or throw it around scattershot (as another commenter accused). Actually, this is the first time I've ever chosen to refer to a film with that term.

While pointing to the Dardennes other work can inform this discussion (but they've made films about male jerks, too!), there is nothing wrong with me examining this film as an individual entity -- especially since I am discussing the film and not the filmmakers. I know others are quibbling with that point -- saying the two things are inseparable -- but I disagree. I can easily imagine the Dardennes honestly being taken aback at my opinion as alien to their intentions. That doesn't invalidate my individual reaction to the film they have created.

VM: There are plenty of despicable men in *this* movie. In other words, why do we hear so much here about Lorna's despicableness (and thus the film's misogyny), but not about the despicableness of the Mafia guys who *hatch* the plan, who *actually* "kill" Claudy, who *also* plan to kill Lorna, etc., which makes them even more despicable (and thus on the very logic presented here, the film's misandry).

Nictate: Yes, but those men are criminal types who we expect despicable acts from in a drama like this. As characters, they are barely drawn. This is clearly Lorna's story.

**IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE: Lorna's despicableness as a character and the way she was treated by men in the film served only as the construction zone for my misogyny theory. The main crux of my argument, which I honed in on as I wrote my Rebuttal Numero Uno to MD'A, is that two elements of the film pushed it into misogynistic territory for me -- the hysterical pregnancy that devolves into madness and the element of magical realism in the ending (forest scene). If I'd just seen a film about a shitty woman being treated shabbily by men, I wouldn't have gotten so fired up and used the M word. I could've accepted Lorna's Silence as a character study with a realistic portrayal of what happens when you make dirty deals. It was the added story element of madness and the added storytelling element of magical realism that disturbed me to the point that I had to call foul.**

VM: "I define her fleeting acts of compassion in the film as being consistently reluctant actions motivated by a craving for expediency in meeting her own goals or wanting to relieve her nagging guilt rather than anything truly sincere or heartfelt or humane."

The whole middle part of the movie is just "fleeting"? I'm sorry .... the whole dynamic for about 25-30 minutes is a push-pull between the deal she made and her sorta growing affection for Claudy, which results in her trying to get out from under the worst consequences of that deal. One can scream in all-caps about "WHO TRIES TO REASON WITH THE MAFIA?" but there's a very simple answer ... those already under the influence of the Mafia, for whatever reason. And what else can such a person do?

Nictate: The problem with my original Lorna's Silence post is that I was simultaneously reviewing the film, describing why I loathed Lorna as a character and presenting my misogyny point, so it got confusing for readers as to what was evidence on the misogyny charge and what was random venting. The all-caps Mafia line was definitely random venting and did not need that kind of emphasis. And, as you correctly point out, a character in that situation doesn't have much choice but to try to reason their way out. Apologies for distracting from more important things with that randomness.

My "fleeting" comment was more about little moments like when she stuck extra things in his bag for the hospital.

That mid-section of the film you mention doesn't equate to acts of compassion for me -- a sticking point with most people who have been disagreeing with me on the film. If you see Lorna as compassionate, you're not going to agree with my interpretation. I saw that portion of the film as her stubbornly trying to make things happen in a way that would be the most expedient for her goals, while not leaving blood on her hands. I didn't see her affection grow for Claudy. Detached pity, yes, affection no.

VM: Curious ... what would a non-misogynist movie do with a female protagonist *who already is in this situation*? OK ... she shouldn't have made the deal in the first place, sure (note that this happens before the movie begins, so it obviously isn't the Dardennes' concern). But that's a different matter. What Do You Do *Now*? You can say she should just get out, but to go where ... remember the objective situation of her legal status in Belgium.

Nictate: That is not the Dardennes concern as far as the running time of this film, but they did create the story. In that way it is their concern as storytellers. I don't have a sample storyline for you, but I think a film with this same premise that starts at the same point in the situation could easily be non-misogynistic. My misogyny complaint isn't with that. I mentioned it only to begin to outline why I found Lorna so despicable. Again, a reason my blog post could've used some refining.

VM: Rather, Lorna does exactly what most people do if they have a conscience but are engaged in a structure of sin, even ones of their own making. They try to get out from under some of it and the consequences for others without catastrophe befalling oneself. It's equivalent to Faustian negotiating with the devil (or some plausible devil-figure, like we have here). And it's just vulgar to reduce this realistic portrayal of human reaction to sin, especially one's own, to "ultimately all about what Lorna wants and needs."

I like the points you make here. Very interesting to consider. But I don't find what I've expressed vulgar or reductive in the least. I admit this is a realistic portrayal. There are millions of people like Lorna in the world. It's frightening to absorb that, actually. And I have to give the Dardennes credit for capturing that on film. I suppose where I stand alone is in seeing Lorna as a frightening creature and stunted human being.

Steven Schuldt said...
That you hate, mistrust or dislike a woman --even profoundly so-- does not qualify you as a misogynist.

A misogynist would hate, mistrust or dislike a woman he just met, whom he knows nothing about, simply because she's female.

And yes, Alejandro Adams has it right in that it's a slog for men to argue with women against this sort of scattershot abuse of that term without themselves automatically sounding like defensive, patronizing misogynists.

There needs to be a word that means "mistrust, dislike or hatred for throwaway accusations of 'misogyny'"


Steve, your first line makes me cringe in that it reminded me of a couple of spots in my blog post where I jokingly called myself a misogynist because of my reaction to Lorna as a character. Those jokes were defensive and preemptive and weakened my points, so I regret including those.

I know the M word is abused and overused. I didn't chose it casually or in a throwaway way. My reaction was sincere and I've never used that term to describe a film before.

Thanks for sharing the Ray Carney excerpts.

Guido Stern said...
Re Alejandro: "misogynist" is both noun and adjective, the latter meaning "reflecting or inspired by a hatred of women : a misogynist attitude." Which, indeed, means that misogynist and misogynistic are interchangeable.

Re the debate: I'm on the not-misogynist side, mostly because like Mike mentioned, L'Enfant presents Jeremie Renier's character as an equally stupid/thoughtless character who tries to atone after doing dumb, irrevocable shit, and I wouldn't say the Dardennes are misanthropes because of it.


Thanks, Guido. Mike and Victor raised the same point. It's interesting to point out that the Dardennes portrayed a male jerk, too, but as I explain in my previous rebuttal blog post to MD'A , there are things specific to Lorna's Silence that can't be compared to The Child and these are the points that make up the strongest part of my argument (i.e., hysterical pregnancy devolving into madness + introduction of magical realism).

AT THIS POINT, ALEJANDRO ADAMS AND VICTOR MORTON GOT POETIC AND SHIT. Thanks for the comic relief, guys.

Anonymous said...

Misandry is derived from misanthropy.
Etymology: mis- (as in misanthropy) + andr- + 2-y
Date: circa 1909
: a hatred of men

There is no corollary to misogyny in linguistics; that's why The Second Sex was written and unfortunately mis-interpreted through bad translation, where it remains misunderstood today by English speaking people.

If the Dardennes didn't give Lorna the same level of preparation they gave a man's story in L'Enfant, I'm going to err in favor of Nictate; because the subject is too easy to dismiss on the grounds of it being a realistic portrayal or that she just didn't like the protagonist. The only thing "throw (or thrown) away" here is seeing misogyny rigidly defined as needing to rise to some critical level and banning small turns of it as not something that makes something else suck.

ballywick


Nictate: OK, this wasn't a critical comment, but I wanted to include it here because 1) It was nice to have Ballywick (and, earlier, Ozma) in my corner 2) Ballywick makes a really refreshing point in the line I've put in bold.

Mike said...
Alejandro,
You're a royal bastard for making me think I could correct a successful filmmaker, and mediocre poet.

Victor,
I didn't know the word for hatred of men, so I used misanthrope implying that most men would probably hate humans before they hated only men. This is likely flawed but I simply wasn't going searching for the word "misandry," so thank you for doing the work for me and teaching me something new.

Nictate: I agree, Mike. Thank you to Victor. I wasn't familiar with the term "misandry" until this exchange either.

Alejandro Adams said...
Ballywick, your IQ must exceed mine by a factor of seventyjillions. I can't make out a single thing you've written in any of your comments.

I love that I can come to the comments section of Nictate's blog to get my Ray Carney interview fix. I've been tickled by that all day. Nictate's blog comments pop-up window: the smoke-filled room in which the cinerati convene.


Nictate: A.A.- Once again, thanks for making me laugh. The smoke-filled room line is an instant classic.

Anonymous said...
You do know what you're talking about Nictate, you just felt it like a full body blow. A. O. Scott said Lorna's Silence "was singled out last year for its screenplay, which is very good but which is also perhaps too much in evidence. Every fictional character, of course, is controlled by an external force, but in this case the reversals and surprises in the narrative undermine our crucial sense of Lorna’s autonomy, and of her solitude."

Try L'Enfant and let your camera eye take over; I recall having serial camera orgasms and feeling peaceful w/the story & characters.

Gemko's live tweeting reveals a serious soft spot for this character's story. Everyone's entitled.

I still haven't dug up the NYT story about The Dardennes' preparation for L'Enfant.

b.w.

Nictate: And thanks again, Ballywick, for doing some legwork to see if I had a case. I appreciate the open-mindedness and lack of knee-jerk reaction on your part. And I agree with you about Gemko's serious soft spot for Lorna's story. Also totally agree everyone's entitled.

Which is kinda my whole point in these rebuttals and my original blog post that lit the firestorm. I am entitled to say how a film made me feel, even if that involves using a hot button, often abused adjective.

Rebuttal Numero Uno: MD'A

Geez Louise.

The response to my Lorna's Silence misogyny rant has been awesome in its fury. My humble blog has never seen the likes of it. My comments section lit up like a Winnemucca one-armed bandit that's been sweatily pumped by a retired bus driver for six hours straight. I've become a mini-lightning rod, which is simultaneously exhilarating and exhausting. But I don't regret sticking my neck out. Even though I didn't like the film, I have to give it credit for getting me worked up enough to examine it in this detail. I love movies and love discussing movies, so I have to thank the Dardennes for pissing me off enough to make this blog conversation happen.

I want to respond to everyone who argued with my point, but it's gonna take some time. In deciding to reply in chronological order, I found that my rebuttal to MD'A's comment took much longer than I anticipated to write up and many more typed characters than a single comment box could contain. So I decided to put it up as a new post (as in this one). I will reply to the other critical comments as soon as I can.

I would like to thank everyone who took the time to read that rather lengthy rant of mine and appreciate the thought and passion they put into their comments.

So now, my reply to MD'A. I've cut and pasted his feedback regarding my previous post from the comments section and replied to each of his points one-by-one below.

Please note: MANY SPOILERS FOLLOW.

MD'A: Well, this is just as off-base as I'd anticipated. It's fine that you didn't like the movie. I think it's terrific, but it's your right to bored, annoyed, and any number of other negative emotions, just as I was mostly bored and annoyed by, say, your beloved Synecdoche, New York.

Nictate: Yes, it is my right to be all those things. It is also my right to identify something as misogynistic if that’s how it impacted me. Outside of the professional critics' realm, reactions to filmed pieces of art are wholly subjective and personal. This blog post represents my personal reaction to this film.

MD'A: However, the vast majority of your argument about the film's misogyny is simply based on the fact that Lorna is an unlikeable character who does reprehensible things. We can have a legitimate debate about just how horrible a person she is, but even if she's worse than freakin' Hitler, that does not in any way constitute misogyny.

Nictate: First off, I automatically deduct points from anyone who drops the H-bomb into an argument. That is second only to name-calling in revealing someone is not confident enough in their argument to stick to the issue at hand.

You criticize my argument in that it’s based on Lorna’s unlikable characteristics and reprehensible behaviors. How else, I must ask, does a storyteller convey a misogynistic/misanthropic attitude without somehow using his or her character’s traits and behaviors? By making a character wear a scarlet letter for the entire running time?

MD'A: In order to make that claim, you'd have to make the case that had this character been a man, he would have been portrayed in a radically different manner. And there's zero basis for that assertion.

Nictate: Radically different? No, not necessarily. Notably different will serve the purpose, if the notable differences are something along the lines of a hysterical pregnancy linked with a descent into madness and the sudden introduction of magical realism.

MD'A: Granted, you haven't seen any of the Dardennes' other films, but had you seen, for example, L'Enfant, you'd know that these filmmakers are perfectly willing to show male protagonists behaving equally badly (and then, like Lorna, attempting to atone).

Nictate: The comparison to a man behaving in similarly negative ways in their other film is interesting, but I feel that the three key elements of Lorna’s story mentioned above make that comparison insufficient. From what I understand, the magical realism element is new to the Dardennes body of work, so the male character in L’Enfant would not have endured this plot device.

Introducing the element of magical realism lifts this story into another realm of interpretation, in my opinion—into the realm of alternate interpretations and possible symbolism. This is vital to my argument in that I feel this character Lorna is “punished” for her bad behavior in a way that echoes negative portrayals of “mad women” throughout history.

The added element of magical realism gives credence to my argument in that it opens the door to extrapolation—an extrapolation in which I can now interpret Lorna as something more than just a down-trodden chick in Belgium, but as a possible symbol of Modern Working Poor Woman or just plain, old Womankind. Now that the possibility of Lorna representing Woman is considered, in theory any hatred/mistrust/dislike witnessed towards her can be interpreted as Misogyny.

MD'A: Basically you just spend umpteen paragraphs listing all the reasons you despised this character—which, again, is a legitimate response so far as simply disliking the film is concerned—and then at the end you conclude that the film itself is misogynist because some of the particular things Lorna does are female-specific, e.g. a man can't experience pseudocyesis. Sorry, but that's just nutty. In fact it's pretty much exactly the same kind of nutty as Andrea Dworkin's belief that all intercourse is rape because it involves the male penetrating the female (whether consensually or not; in her mind it's still an invasion and that's dictated by anatomy).

Nictate: I felt the umpteen paragraphs of dissection were important in illustrating that Lorna is portrayed in a myriad of negative ways from end to end. It becomes like the banging of a drum—finally wearing down into her madness. Time after time, in the most mundane of interactions, she is shown to be an appalling individual.

As for the “nutty” comment—ahem. This smacks of name-calling, as mentioned above, which should lead to more points deducted from your score, but I’ll let it slide this time.

What I will NOT let slide is the comparison of my heated critique of one film to being “pretty much exactly the same kind of nutty” as a fringe element’s gross generalization of human intercourse at large. Nice blog commentary theater, but fuck that baseless charge (though consensually, tenderly).

MD'A: There are differences between men and women; some of those differences (particularly those involving pregnancy and childbirth) create potential dramatic situations that apply solely to women (unless it's Billy Crystal); and the fact that a filmmaker employs such situations in the story of a female character you find despicable does not entail misogyny.

Nictate: Indeed. But when it’s a hysterical pregnancy melting into madness, we start to veer into a different territory. The pregnancy is symbolic to Lorna, which allowed me to make the leap of it being symbolic of something larger in terms of the storytelling, which allowed me to make the leap that Lorna is in herself symbolic of something larger (see Lorna as Woman point above).

MD'A: Nor does Luc Dardenne's statement that he and his brother started out wanting to make a film about a woman, or that they sometimes viewed their protagonist with hatred. In other films they start out wanting to make a film about a man and they sometimes view him with hatred. Nothing about their treatment of Lorna can possibly be enlarged to encompass Woman herself, and that's reflected in this rant, which (as I predicted) makes a strong case for why you think this movie sucks but utterly fails to demonstrate that the film as a whole hates, dislikes or even mistrusts women as a gender.

Nictate: I think it’s VERY important that the Dardennes began work on this film with ONLY the idea that it must be about a woman. They had no other detail in their minds at the start, as Luc described it. Looking through that lens is what informed their story-crafting process. I find that significant. Not damning, of course, but definitely significant.

I heartily disagree with your statement that “Nothing about their treatment of Lorna can possibly be enlarged to encompass Woman herself….” Oh, yes, oh, yes, it absolutely can! Of course, I’ve already made that point above, but there are other storytelling elements that underline this. Lorna dominates almost every frame. The only other female presence in the film occurs in tiny roles. The nurse who wipes the blood off of Lorna’s wounded head represents the lengthiest interaction with another female that Lorna has in the whole film. This is important to note. Even the nurse’s compassion towards Lorna in being willing to serve as a witness is very professional. There is no feminine softness in Lorna’s life. No friends or family she confides in. Sure, that’s not a prerequisite for any film, but it represents an interesting choice by the filmmakers. They’ve surrounded her with men who either mistreat her or do not give her what she wants.

But back to your point that to accurately accuse a film of being misogynistic, I have to demonstrate that it represents a hatred/mistrust/dislike of women as a gender. To me, that means you’re limiting me to using the term only in a relation to a film that operates in a world of strict symbolism or shows a large group of women a negative light. I reject that limitation in that using individuals to represent larger groups of humanity is a long-held dramatic tradition. Maybe you don’t think Lorna is representative of more than just herself. Maybe the Dardennes never dreamt of that. But it’s as clear as day to me and not even a personal phone call from the brothers telling me I’m totally off-base would change my opinion.

MD'A: Oh, and on the ending as somehow punishing her: Would you also say—I don't know if you've seen this film, but hopefully you have—that Terry Gilliam is punishing Sam Lowry at the end of Brazil? The mere fact that a character goes mad does not automatically constitute contempt on the part of the filmmaker(s), and I submit that it only seems that way to you in this instance because your own personal opinion of Lorna is so overpoweringly negative.

Nictate: I have seen Brazil and remember loving it, but it’s been too long for me to remember details (except for Robert De Niro drowning in shit?). I don’t think a character going mad automatically constitutes punishment, but it’s one hell of a good way to punish a character if you’re looking for one. It’s also a lazy escape for a storyteller.

MD'A: That nobody else has interpreted this ending as ‘punishment’ for that ‘crazy bitch’ ought to be giving you pause.

Nictate: It gives me pause like it gave Madame Curie pause that no one else had yet discovered radioactivity.

MD'A: I respect and value your opinion on matters cinematic and other, as you know, but you're out to lunch on this particular issue.

Nictate: Thanks for the respect, MD’A. I return it wholeheartedly. As for lunch, I’ll have the pastrami.

Misogyny is not just a river in Belgium

Meet Lorna. One of the most contemptible characters ever committed to celluloid.

This blank-faced beauty is the lead character in the latest cinematic offering from the Palme d'Or-winning brothers known as the Dardennes. The film's title is Lorna's Silence.

Before my rant kicks in, I should note that this is the first film in their oeuvre that I've seen. I've been told that that lack of context may play a role in my strong negative reaction to this film -- a reaction so strong and so negative that it caused me to play the misogyny card, my friends and compatriots.

Before I go any further, please be forewarned that this is another film rant on my part and it's bulging with ***SPOILERS***! So be alerted and what not.

I've also excerpted some quotes from The A.V. Club interview with the writers/directors.

And one more duty to perform before frothing at the mouth: Dictionary.com tells me misogyny is the "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women." That's a pretty good range of emotions encapsulated in one explosion-inducing word. I think most people understand that the definition includes hatred, but some may not realize that the milder forms of "dislike" and "mistrust" qualify.

CUE THE RANT PROPER!

1. WHY LORNA'S SILENCE BORED ME:

For the 40 minutes or so of the film, I had difficulty connecting emotionally with this film's characters due to the performance choices the two lead actors made/were guided to make. I found Arta Dobroshi's turn as Lorna to be damagingly drained of emotion (outside of a few abrupt and exceedingly fleeting outbursts of anger, sadness and joy). Jérémie Renier as Claudy was distractingly weak in the role. Oy.

As far as the action and storyline, I don't think that that many telegraphs have been sent to an audience since the heyday of Western Union. Needless to say, boredom soon kicked in. By the 1 hr., 10 min. mark, I was longing to exit this film to re-watch the amazing Revanche (seek it out!) -- another film-noirish offering released this year that is far superior to Lorna's Silence in every possible way.

2. WHY LORNA'S SILENCE ANNOYED ME:

My boredom soon turned to aggravation when I realized that Lorna was one of the most despicable characters I'd ever been asked to sympathize with in a film. She is at turns amoral, icy, petulant, dumb, irrational, impetuous and greedy. As the capper, she devolves into unmitigated batshit crazy. What a ride!

Before the howls begin, I realize that *most people who have seen this film* are able to find a kindness at the heart of her character. Me? Hell to the no. I define her fleeting acts of compassion in the film as being consistently reluctant actions motivated by a craving for expediency in meeting her own goals or wanting to relieve her nagging guilt rather than anything truly sincere or heartfelt or humane.

3. ALLOW ME TO ELABORATE ON THE AMORAL POINT:

C'mon, guys. This is a woman who enters into a deal with the Russian mafia to falsely marry a junkie who she knows will be killed before the divorce he's been promised as a second payday. She makes this horrifying decision in order to gain citizenship by marriage and to earn relatively quick money, so that she can be with her boyfriend and open her dream snack shop with him. Well, what gal wouldn't be willing to let a drug addict get iced so she can serve speculoos to shopgirls?

Sure, Lorna has a crappy dry cleaners job and was living in a tiny box of a sublet before entering into this deal with the devil, but there are a lot of people with crappy jobs in tiny boxes of apartments who would never dream of colluding in a homicide. That the intended victim is a junkie whose life could easily be lost to drugs anyway should offer no clemency to this woman.

YES, YES. I KNOW! These are the kinds of moral dilemmas that the Dardennes like to explore in their work, along with the perceived value of human life. Great dramatic fodder, no doubt. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS ACT AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFIES HER AS WORTHY OF DISLIKE, MISTRUST AND, IN MY CASE, HATRED! OK. So now *I'm* the misogynist. Fine. But let's move on.

4. ON THE PETULANT TIP:

Lorna is at her best -- outside of the happy bike chase with the drug bloke that lasts all of 60 seconds -- when she interacts with her boyfriend. Yet even with her man, her moments of pleasure are fleeting. She pouts habitually when he won't give her the right kind of attention at the right moment.

5. ON THE IRRATIONAL/IMPETUOUS/DUMB TIP:

Sure, Lorna tries doggedly to save the junkie by trumping up spousal abuse charges in order to gain a divorce. She even tries to reason with the mafia via her cabbie contact, Fabio, to stop the junkie's murder. BUT WHO TRIES TO REASON WITH THE MAFIA? SOON-TO-BE DEAD PEOPLE. AND CHARACTERS IN FILMS THAT NEED DRAMATIC CONFLICT, SURE. I'm just saying that it made me lose even more interest in her as an anti-heroine when she continued to act without considering any consequences.

Moving on, once again. After trying to bully the gentle junkie into hurting her, she even inflicts injuries on herself (irrational, impetuous, dumb) to create evidence to get the divorce. I know some will argue that these desperate acts are born out of a sense of caring for the junkie whose life she wants to save -- but it's ultimately all about what Lorna wants and needs. She wants the junkie alive, because she doesn't want to be an accomplice in his death. And, sure, she offers to help him stay clean after they get the divorce, but there is a franticness in her offer. The chick wants what she wants -- why won't this drug-addled idiot give it to her?!

The scene that could most easily be pointed to as representing Lorna's walls coming down is when she locks herself in the apartment with the junkie and strips naked in order to distract him from a drug buy by having sex with him. Surely this shows her at her most vulnerable and humane? I agree, it shows vulnerability -- yet still at play is the impetuosity, the irrationality (a one-night stand is supposed to cure a junkie?), stupidity (unprotected sex with someone who shoots heroin?). And there is no affection shown her on her part. It's a desperate animal act -- manic and misplaced.

Sure, when the junkie is killed, Lorna buys him a nice shirt for the funeral and tries to return his money to his mother. Again, this felt like a way to excise her guilt for being a jerk to him while he was alive, not to honor his memory or the junkie's mother. Oh, sure, her heart had softened towards him postcoitally, but that's a small comfort given the big picture.

And guess who snatches the one-thousand Euros she originally refused from Fabio for her extra "work" in getting the junkie clean? Our little Lorna. She then uses that money to get a loan on the snack shop space. Yes, folks, she enters this expensive arrangement before the second fake marriage vows have been spoken and before the divorce that will give her her final payday (now serving: more irrationality, impetuousity and stupidity). The woman's got no head for business, I tell ya!

6. YAY! WE'VE FINALLY REACHED CRAZY!

After signing the lease, Lorna becomes overcome by the belief that she is pregnant with the junkie's child. She considers an abortion, then flees the doctor's office before her exam can be conducted, but only after clutching the doc in a bizarre clench resembling a hug and bursting into gasping tears.

She later tries to put money in an account for her baby under the junkie's last name, but the teller says she can't open an account until the baby is born. She argues the point angrily until she finally agrees the money can wait in her account until her water breaks. So hard to reason with this woman!

She tells Fabio she's pregnant, then she asks her future fake husband if he'd be willing to deal with a baby. When the future husband says no and Fabio becomes impatient, she backs down. Oh, dear. So now Fabio no longer trusts her (would you?) and decides to have one of his henchmen introduce her to her maker. I have to admit, at this point in the film, I was kinda looking forward to having her character "silenced" because she had become like a festering boil in my movie world. Now *that's* misogyny for ya, but the Dardennes drove me there!

Lorna realizes she's about to get iced, tears well and she makes an excuse that she needs to pee in order to get out of the car. For the first time in the film, I'm able to relate to her -- I needed to urinate, too.

On the way out of the car, she tries to grab her purse. The henchman knows better and snags it back. She talks to herself and her imaginary fetus as she relieves herself, cleverly (for once!) grabbing a rock from the ferns at her feet. She then knocks the driver out with the rock with remarkable precision and runs like the wind, leaving escape-enhancing devices like his car, his car keys and her purse behind. Mkay. I should give her a break here, right? She's freaking out about her impending doom -- not thinking clearly. A girl can make mistakes ad nauseum throughout a two-hour running time. Fine. Whatever. I just want this misery over.

So she's running. Running through the woods to get away. I've read in two different spots now that this portion of the film can be interpreted as either being inside Lorna's fantasy or a bit of magical realism. Again, whatever. She finds a safehouse in the woods and builds a fire for herself and her ghost baby. A fire that -- if not in magical realism world -- would not only send out smoke that would help her pursuers track her, but would probably fill the room with carbon monoxide and suffocate her.

But back to crazy. During her desperate escape and firewood gathering, she speaks to her imaginary unborn baby with the royal "we." She tells the child she will protect it, since she let its father down. Again, this struck me as motivated by guilt for the blood on her hands -- to relieve her own discomfort.

7. THE FALLOUT

When I left the theater, I was angry for all the reasons I mention above. About 30 minutes later, I realized that there was more to my ire than mere quibbles with a disappointing melodrama. I was angry because while Lorna endured misogynistic treatment from certain male characters in the film, ultimately the film qualifies as misogynistic in itself. Most pointedly in the "end" she meets. After all, isn't making her character crazy-go-nuts the best punishment for such an amoral, icy, petulant, irrational, impetuous, dumb, greedy woman who won't play by the rules? Way better than just popping a cap in her ass or letting her escape by her suddenly located wits. Now she can stew in her own nutty juices, inhaling punitive smoke as she lies prostrate, pitiful, with her junkie baby dream, in those wacky red jeans. It's kind of a long-held tradition in misogyny, isn't it? The psycho bitch who gets what she deserves? Yeah, just super.

Now here's the rub -- I seem to be the only one who has had this reaction to this film. I am surprised by that fact since the details described above seem wholly damning to me. I assume others found her character sympathetic, compassionate, relatable -- a victim of circumstances. Maybe even Madonna-esque (the Biblical one, not Guy's ex). Egads.

OK, so now to face more possible fury for using the "M" word here. Let's ask the natural series of questions:

If Lorna was Loren and the story played out in the exact same way (um, minus the pregnancy), wouldn't he just be an unappealing character vs. an example of misogyny? To a point, yes, but there are vital details to Lorna's tale that makes the "M" word fitting. The particulars of Lorna's story -- the marriages of convenience, the intimidation factor by the tough guys she makes her partners, the faked domestic violence, the hysterical pregnancy and thoughts of abortion, even the "mercy sex" with the junkie -- these are all dramatic themes heightened by the protaganist being a woman, of course. But it's more than having a uterus that's at play here. These themes go to the heart of feminine wiles, power and vulnerabilities.

A quote from Luc Dardenne in reply to The A.V. Club's question of what inspired this film:

"It began, I think, with the desire to film a woman. We didn’t really know who, where, how, but it was the idea of a woman."

Luc again:

"Because we thought we needed to watch this woman, to observe, and not to mimic her movements with the camera, as we did in Rosetta. That requires a little bit of distance, and a more fixed position, to observe this mysterious woman, who has a skull with many compartments: She tells the truth to one, not to another. She takes part in many tableaux to arrive at this ending. So we watch her, sometimes with compassion, sometimes with hatred, sometimes with comprehension. We watch her. And we are always asking ourselves who she is."

Sometimes with hatred? I would say *mostly* with hatred, beloved Belgian dudes -- even if it is subtle, shuffling at the edges, disguised by a lingering camera lens of intermittent compassion/comprehension. At least that's the gut reaction it drew out of me. And I don't need Gloria Allred standing by my side to know my reaction has merit. I stand by my side.

PLEASE KNOW THIS: I'M NOT ACCUSING THE DARDENNES OF BEING MISOGYNISTS EITHER AS INDIVIUALS OR ARTISTS. And I freely admit that a film can contain misogyny and not be misogynistic in itself, BUT I do find this film of theirs to be very much misogynistic in the brutal way they've chosen to portray their character as storytellers. Once again, I know the brothers trade in brutal tales. Point taken.

Ultimately, the only comfort I can find in my opinion is that this film will serve to illuminate the ugliness it reveals and by illuminating it, may inspire something to curtail it. Let's hope so, because it's just a goddamn boring film otherwise. Insert smiley face emoticon here!