Category Archives: Movies

The Empire Strikes Back

Unknown-2The Empire Strikes Back: Things that were quite good

  • THANK YOU, George, for that great gift to modern culture: “I thought these things smelled bad… on the outside…”
  • Han Solo
  • The Han/Luke friendship. DAW.
  • Han and Leia tension. Unknown
    • James: I’m surprised by how early in the film this occurs.
  • James: the music makes the film.
  • Imperial walkers.
  • Luke says, in the middle of a FOREST, “It’s like something out of a dream!” Wow, George. Subtle.
  • “Wars not make one great.” Preach, George.
  • The revelation that the emperor knows who Luke is is definitely more poignant thanks to the prequels.
  • And Yoda’s hovel is more poignant too.
  • This entire set of movies should be subtitled: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
  • Han.
  • Lando!
  • I’d forgotten just how echoes/foreshadowings there were in the prequels, with words and actions and scenes. It makes me forgive them a little bit more.

What were you thinking, George?

  • Unconvinced by the new bits of the snow critter.
  • THAT KISS GEORGE EW MY BRAIN.
  • You’re continuing the assumption that cities <=> civilisation in Luke’s little comment about Dagobah, George. I know he’s still a whiny little kids, but nonetheless – unhelpful.
  • You retconned Boba Fett’s VOICE, George.
  • Vader goes through underlings at a rate of knots. Bad vision of leadership there.

Were you sad that Mark Hamill didn’t get prettier, George? 

Galactic Suburbia: The Martian

In which Tansy and Alex talk tragic potatoes, Lord of the Rings jokes, deep space parkour and the retirement plans of Sean Bean, among other topics that become inevitable as we delve into the recent Ridley Scott directed, Matt Damon + Science = OTP movie, The Martian, based on the novel by Andy Weir.

Get us from iTunes or at Galactic Suburbia!

ETA: my source was wrong about the LOTR joke! SAD  😡

You can Skype us to leave a short message about any of our topics or episodes, to be included in a future show.

03 90164171 (within Australia) +613 90164171 (from overseas)

Otherwise, please send feedback to us at galacticsuburbia@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter at @galacticsuburbs, check out Galactic Suburbia Podcast on Facebook, support us at Patreon and don’t forget to leave a review on iTunes if you love us!

Suffragette

This post brought to you courtesy of Parissah and Aoife.

Unknown-2

I’ve long had a fascination with the Pankhursts and the suffrage movement; I was reminded recently that I did a research assignment on the Pankhursts in year… 10? 11?; I’ve taught the British suffrage movement for a few years; I loved the biographies of Emmeline and of her daughter Sylvia, such different women; I’ve enjoyed other books on the movement too. I’ve wished that the 1970s tv show Shoulder to Shoulder existed on DVD, and I long to see Up the Women. So it should be no surprise that I was pretty excited to see Suffragette.

The only spoilers below are for which bits of the suffrage movement the film focuses on. If you don’t know the events, then I guess there are spoilers… and you need to go read some history. Here, this will help. If I tell you that the film starts in 1912… well, that’s a bit of a giveaway.

Just go see the film, right?

The basic premise of the film is that life is generally crap for women and maybe getting the vote will help. Which was basically the premise of the Pankhursts’ campaign, and that of Millicent Fawcett and all the campaigners for fifty or so years before the WSPU seriously made headlines. The film manages to show just about every way in which everyday life sucked for British women in 1912: unequal pay, sexual abuse in the workplace, men in control of the house – money, children – and the general notion that women are unfit for politics or anything other than menial work. (The focus is on white women, since the suffrage movement In Britain was generally; of course there was a whole other layer of problems for women of colour.) The response of most of the men to the women’s claims for equality is to be abusive or to laugh, at the very idea of it. Let’s not forget that rapper who thought Hilary Clinton shouldn’t be president because she might nuke someone because women get emotionalIn 2015. Cue this:

UnknownThe focus is on Maud, a 24-year-old woman who’s been a laundress since she was seven. She’s married, she has a son, and she has no time for politics – literally no time, because she works all day at the laundry and then keeps working at home. She gets caught up almost accidentally in a suffrage protest, and things progress from there in an almost textbook case of how to radicalise someone, which is an interesting thought given Australia’s current overblown fears about just that issue.

Most of the cast is fictional, as Maud is. There are a couple of notable exceptions. There’s a scene when Maud is first in prison and she’s introduced to an Emily, who’s on hunger strike. I thought nothing of it, really, until there was a list of names in the police station and suddenly the name Emily Wilding Davison flashed up and if I had been alone watching the film I would have yelped. It had not occurred to me that the film would go there.

Unknown-1UnknownMeryl Streep as Emmeline Pankhurst only has one significant scene, which surprised me somewhat, although as this review points out the focus on working class women is a fairly radical one and one that I really appreciated. She was appropriately grand, and again, when I saw her, I nearly yelped. They had the costuming down brilliantly, which is to be expected given how many wonderful pictures there are of Pankhurst; no idea whether they got her speech mannerisms or not, because I don’t know of any recordings of her voice.

Of the others – I liked the variety portrayed, within the limited purview of the film (that’s not a criticism; the film deliberately sets itself the task of looking at one group of women). Violet is a long-time campaigner struggling to keep the faith; Edith Ellyn, played by Helena Bonham Carter (who is wonderful AND! I discovered is the great-graddaughter of that bugger Asquith, who rejected women’s suffrage!) is a pharmacist with a loving and supportive husband. There’s a brief appearance from an upper middle-class woman who supports the campaign but whose husband is strongly against, and numerous women around the laundry and Maud’s neighbourhood who do not support it at all because of the difficulties it brings at home.

I have one significant quibble, and it’s one that I’m conflicted over. I liked that the police perspective was given; it highlighted just how anti-suffrage the establishment was, and the lengths that they were willing to go to stop the women. (The scene with the new portable camera – so light it doesn’t need a tripod! – that can be used covertly is hilarious; it’s still a shoebox.) However. However. Why is it that a film about the suffrage movement needed a male perspective? Because that’s exactly what Brendan Gleeson is providing, by being the copper who talks to Maud and is always present when something big is happening on the streets; he’s a male point of view on the proceedings. Could it be that a significant portion of the audience still couldn’t care less about the experiences of a person like Maud – poor, uneducated, female? I’m troubled by this, and it’s the one aspect that made me sad (about the film experience, I mean. There was a lot that made me sad). The film could have shown the police in general, as they prepare to battle the women on the streets; that would have got across the same point without it feeling like Gleeson’s character was an alternate viewpoint on the events.

I’ve also read comments about it being disappointing that there are no people of colour in the film at all, which I think is absolutely a fair call. From the perspective of suffrage history, yes there were women of colour involved but the records about individual members, regardless of race, are pretty sparse so as far as I know it’s not clear what the proportions are. I don’t know what the solution to this could have been (not an excuse, just a comment).

I’ve read a review that suggests Maud is basically a cipher, a stand-in, and not a really person – and to an extent I agree. I mean, basically everything bad that could happen to her, does, and she’s involved in just about everything interesting (well, public anyway) that happens in the suffrage movement in 1912 and 1913. But I don’t think this is a bad thing necessarily. The film is called Suffragette. The only way to really convey the experience of ordinary women in the struggle is exactly like this – to show one woman, experiencing it. I think Maud is intended to stand in for white working class women in 1912 who started thinking about politics, and she does it well.

At the end of the film, there’s a potted history of when different countries gave women the vote; the cinema erupted when Switzerland came up as 1971.

It’s also only I think the second time I’ve been in a cinema when there was applause when the film concluded.

Overall I think this a welcome addition to films about women’s history… since the list of films about women’s history, and feminist history, is a pretty short one. Next I would like to order films about Olympe de Gouges, and one about Mary Wollstonecraft kthxbai.

A New Hope

And now we get to the original series. Which is… interesting.

A New Hope: things that were quite good

  • James: “listen to that analogue sound. Beryllium bells!”
  • Ah, the childhood reminiscences. For a very long time, I thought the trumpets for 20th Century Fox were actually for Star Wars.
  • That opening, with those starships? SWOON.
  • At least you didn’t retcon the voices of the stormtroopers.
  • Feisty Leia!
  • You managed to convey so much emotion from a rolling rubbish bin and a few beeps. Bravo, George.
  • The prequels made me feel far empathy for Owen and Boru than I had previously experienced (this may also be due to Age).
  • I am totally fine with the idea of Ewan McGregor growing up to be Alec Guinness.
  • Most of the additions to Mos Eisley are basically ok.
  • The cantina song. Which was nearly our wedding processional.
  • Han Solo!
    • Who totally always shot first.
    • And is responsible for a lot of ladies (and not a few fellas, I would guess) having their first ‘scoundrels are swoon-worthy’ moment.
  • Alec Guinness.
  • Darth Vader v Obi-wan is surprisingly more poignant coming right off the back of the prequels.
  • Han Solo.

What were you thinking, George?

  • You FRIDGED Owen and Boru, George. That was callous.
  • Even though the additions to Mos Eisley are mostly ok, I still don’t know why you bothered. Seriously. Leave well enough alone, George.
  • Stormtroopers are really bad shots.
  • Luke is So. Whiny. “But I was going into Tosche Station to pick up some power converters!” said every self-absorbed adolescent ever.
    • Which I get, there has to be some development, but does he have to be SO mopey?
  • The throne room scene. So cheesy. So very cheesy. Grins for everyone! Teeth out in the hope of a sequel!

Revenge of the Sith

Unknown-1We actually did watch this a couple of days after Episode 1 and Episode 2, but I couldn’t quite bring myself to write about it at the time.

Movie whose name I couldn’t initially remember: things that weren’t too bad:

  • The opening fight scene is quite nice.
  • Christopher Lee. Again.
  • Anakin’s robotic arm is nicely styled.
  • Samuel L. Jackson
    • Samuel L Jackson fighting with a light sabre.
  • Ewan McGregor is way better in this film.
  • You gave General Grievous four light sabres. That was a stroke of genius.
  • Ian McDiarmaid is scenery-chewing good, for most of the film.
  • Yoda’s suffering as the Jedi are killed. True pathos – and in a puppet. Very nice.
  • A Wookie army!
  • Jimmy Smits!
  • Your classics is showing, George, moving from republic to empire.
  • I finally realised that Anakin’s costume journey parallels Luke’s (ooh, spoilers). That’s quite a nice touch.
  • Anakin and Obi-wan fighting is really pretty cool.
  • The parallel of the twins being born with Vader being born is obvious, but still kinda cool.
  • James Earl Jones.
  • Jimmy Smits.

What were you thinking, George?

  • In the opening credits you say there are heroes on both sides. Why are you confusing the young people with this even-handed post-modern crap?
  • Your droid general sounds like he has emphysema. Or possibly TB. If he was in an 19th-century dress and sounded like that, you’d know there was a death scene coming up. DROIDS DON’T COUGH, GEORGE.
    • ETA: Thanks to Grant I’ve discovered that Grievous is actually a cyborg, who coughs because Windu shot him. In the Clone Wars cartoon. Which just transfers my annoyance: nice little plot point for those in the know, but for the rest of us it’s just confuses. Bad, George; bad.
  • Unknown-2Why wouldn’t a queen let a female senator continue to act in a role she’s clearly been good at just because she has a baby? No, seriously George, why is this a problem?
  • Tell me, George, how exactly is destroying the Sith going to bring balance to the Force? Balance implies, well, balance – stuff on both sides. Without the Sith doesn’t that mean it’s going to be all one-sided? I’m not saying I like the Dark Side, but balance is not the word you’re looking for here.
  • Anakin’s petulance moves his well-founded angst and concern for his mother away from Macbeth or Hamlet and more towards many ten-year-olds I know (and, let’s be honest, Luke in Episode 4).
  • Ian McDiarmaid’s make-up after being beaten up is really, really bad.
  • Anakin goes Total Evil way too quickly.
  • You reduced Padme to weeping and fretting. From elected queen to senator to weeping and wailing. This is not an adequate plot arc, GEORGE. Very disappointing.
    • Also Anakin treats Padme as property. I understand he’s evil but that’s still not cool.
  • “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” Do you even see what you did there, George?
  • I wrote “No respect for traffic patterns” in my notes. I don’t remember what I meant, but still, TRAFFIC PATTERNS, George.

But finally, my biggest gripe, George, is that you did not include Han Solo anywhere in these prequels. You included Boba Fett for heaven’s sake, and Chewbacca, and ANTILLES, but no Han. No moment in a bar where a grizzled man claps a hand to a young boy’s shoulder and says “this is my nephew, I’m teaching him about smuggling”? Why, George? Why?

Attack of the Clones

Our idea initially was that we would watch one episode a week, which would get us about up to episode 7. But Phantom Menace left such a bad taste in our mouths that we decided we had to watch the second: it’s not a great film, but at least it’s not as bad as the first. Right?

So:

Unknown-1Attack of the Clones: things that weren’t too bad:

  • Jay Laga’aia.
  • Ewan McGregor’s hair is definitely better in this film.
    • Obi-wan in general is better in this film. He’s better when he’s stern.
  • Female assassin.
  • Female Jedi!!
  • Yoda in a city.
    • Yoda taking part in politics.
  • YODA FIGHTING.
  • Jedi younglings are super cute.
  • Jango Fett.
  • Boba Fett.
  • Christopher Lee!Unknown
    • Christopher Lee in a speed racer!
    • Christopher Lee with a light sabre!
    • Christopher Lee fighting Yoda!!
  • James: at least they got John Williams back.
    • And the use of CG isn’t quite as bad as Episode 1.

What were you thinking, George?

  • Not enough Jay Laga’aia.
  • You kept Jar Jar, George. You kept Jar Jar.
  • Amidala + Anakin: everything about every scene they are in together.
    • Amidala’s clothing choices. I’m not presuming to speak for every woman here, George, but I think it would have been more realistic for a woman who is being forced to be alone with a man whose romantic interest makes her uncomfortable not to wear provocative clothing. YES she has a choice in what she chooses to wear, NO I am not blaming her for Anakin’s infatuation, but nonetheless it’s a dubious choice for your costuming.
  • Anakin in general.
    • So petulant
    • So creepy towards Amidala
    • His rebelliousness towards Obi-wan is just embarrassing.
  • You have NO RESPECT FOR PHYSICS, George. Super leaps between struts is one thing. But the level of timing required to jump from the speeder onto the assassin’s speeder, not to mention the leap itself, is truly ludicrous. NO RESPECT, George.
  • Amidala always getting pushed around by the menfolks. Boring, George.
  • You fridged Shmi Skywalker, George. Couldn’t you at least have given her a bit more of a story for herself? Shown her with Jack and the kids?
  • You made Christopher Lee say some really bad dialogue, George. That’s nearly unforgivable.
  • James: the CG is still pretty bad.

The Phantom Menace

In honour of The Force Awakens coming out… whenever that is, we’ve decided to rewatch Star Wars. All six. In in-universe chronology.

Yes, today we watched The Phantom Menace.

The Phantom Menace: things that weren’t too bad:

  • The references to the original trilogy were mostly kinda cute, and not all of them were over the top. The “I have a bad feeling about this” is meant to immediately make someone like me feel at home, and I liked that. Also going through a ventilation shaft was pretty funny.
  • UnknownThe meet-cute of C3PO and R2-D2 is, indeed, quite cute.
  • The cameo from Warwick Davis: weird! But cool.
  • Samuel L. Jackson.
  • A nod to diversity: at least two noticeable black humans and two female pilots! Amazing.
  • Liam Neeson’s hair.
  • imagesThe fight between Qui-Gon and Darth Maul is fantastic.
    • Double-ended light sabre!!
  • James: the music. At least they got John Williams back.

What were you thinking, George?

  • It’s a film about trade negotiations going wrong. I mean really.
  • TOO MUCH CGI GEORGE. This is why we can’t have nice things.
  • Qui-Gon’s use of mind tricks as soon as things are slightly difficult is just repulsive.
  • Darth Maul. Not his existence, his lack of one. What a wasted character, man.
    • He has basically no dialogue!
    • He has no motivation!
    • His fight with Qui-Gon is too short.
  • The pod race. I did not need to see all three laps, George.
  • The Gungans. I am all in favour of ignored/oppressed people showing they have something to contribute, but did it have to be in such a racist and boring way?
  • Jar Jar Binks. Everything about him.
    • I do mean everything.
  • Anakin.
    • Ani? Really? For the boy who grows up to be Darth Vader? Seriously.
    • Why did you make him so young?
    • Why did you make him so petulant?
    • Didn’t your casting call throw up any other options?
  • Ewan McGregor’s hair.
  • Qui-Gon is a master Jedi and he’s fooled by some make-up as to who actually has the power in the entourage of women? Really?
  • George, you made Anakin the product of a virgin birth and only spent ten seconds thinking about it. I mean, seriously, man, what the hell?
  • James: the visuals reminded of Bedknobs and Broomsticks. It just looked plastic.

Galactic Suburbia: Teen Feminism edition

In which Tansy, Alisa & Alex take on Feminism 101 with a recs list of teen-friendly resources. Get us at iTunes or Galactic Suburbia.

Long-time listener and frequent commenter Scott emailed us to say : “My 16 year old daughter has been have issues with boys belittling her views at school class and not being supported by close minded teachers. One of the boys asked if she was a feminist. She said she looked it up on the internet and wasn’t sure it was very positive. I’ve told her it can be a positive term depending on how it’s used. Could you point me to a book or two that I could give her that could help break down feminism and put it in a positive light?”

And so, Lily, here are our thoughts…

Feminist Teacher – http://feministteacher.com/
with special note of this vid made by teen boys after taking a high school class on feminism – https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=319&v=9Vh60p4p2QM

Anita Sarkeesian: How to Be A Feminist http://feministfrequency.com/2015/03/24/how-to-be-a-feminist-panel-at-all-about-women/

Mindy Nettifee – For Young Women Who Don’t Consider Themselves Feminists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-aD9WrfWTM

Laci Green: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwJRFClybmk (also recced by Renay on Twitter)

Kitty Flanagan – woman against women against feminism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iADPHWoJb0

Stuff your Mom Never Told You: How To Talk To Friends About Feminism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfRcIVGvEoA

Emma Watson’s UN speech – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjW9PZBRfk

We should all be feminists | Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc&feature=youtu.be c/Tehani

The F-Bomb http://thefbomb.org/

Jessica Valenti: Full Frontal Feminism (2008), He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know (2009)

Amy Poehler – smart girls in the room https://www.youtube.com/user/smartgirls
Vid with a 7 year old explaining feminism & generally celebrating issues to do with being female. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJqTAVJB_x8

Herself – http://herself.com/about/ [NSFW]

Mark Ruffalo on Facebook

Mary Sue’s film recs for growing feminists: http://www.themarysue.com/six-films-growing-feminist/

Listener Recs:
Girls Against Girls by @bonniegrrl c/ Booksandsundry via Twitter
@_TYFA: Twitter Youth Feminist Army c/ Cheryl Morgan
AmeliaBloomer.com Recommended feminist lit for Birth to 18yrs c/ Melina D via Twitter
teenfeminist.com c/ Melina D via Twitter
@SamMaggs’ FANGIRLS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY is beyond brilliant. c/ Deb Stanish

ETA:
From Cheryl:
Awesome though Ruffalo is, he was just quoting someone in that rant. Here’s the original:

Also my awesome pals in Bristol who are doing great things on the menstrual health front.
http://www.bristol247.com/channel/news-comment/comment/cheryl-morgan/lets-talk-about-tampons

About


http://nomoretaboo.org/

Recently found:

Rookie Magazine – aimed at teenaged girls – kinda seems like the teen girl version of a weekend magazine.

Culture Consumed:

Alisa: Sisters of the Revolution: A Feminist Speculative Fiction Anthology, Ann and Jeff Vandermeer; The Grace of Kings, Ken Liu;
Tansy: Mad Max: Fury Road, Captain Marvel 2: Stay Fly, Kelly Sue Deconnick; Karen Memory, Elizabeth Bear
Alex: Mad Max: Fury Road (NB Feminist Mad Max); Guns of the Dawn, Adrian Tchaikovsky; Girl Genius vol 1-13; Summer Prince, Alaya Dawn Johnson

Letters to Tiptree submissions by June 8: http://www.twelfthplanetpress.com/submissions

Bring a mug to our live recording! Or drink tea while listening to our next episode, and tell us about it.

Please send feedback to us at galacticsuburbia@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter at @galacticsuburbs, check out Galactic Suburbia Podcast on Facebook, support us at Patreon and don’t forget to leave a review on iTunes if you love us!

Galactic Suburbia: Jupiter Ascending

In which Alex and Tansy take on the movie that the Mary Sue dubbed “The Worst Movie Ever” and “full-out, ovaries-to-the-wall original space opera.” Sexist melodrama or feminist fairytale? Why can’t it be both? Get us from iTunes or over at Galactic Suburbia.

Shout out to the Jane Rawson readathon:

“Just Read readathon, running through June and July to raise money for the Indigenous Literacy Foundation. I’m lousy at physical activity, growing moustaches and sobriety so I wanted to offer another way for people to raise money for a good cause.”

Sponsor Jane.

Also, Letters to Tiptree: submissions period! (Closes June 8)

JUPITER ASCENDING: or how a hot wingless werewolf got his groove back, and how being a space princess is actually a worse job than cleaning toilets.

Silvia Moreno-Garcia: No, Jupiter Ascending Is Not Your Feminist Fairy Tale

The Mary Sue Review: Jupiter Ascending Is The Worst Movie Ever Go See It Immediately

Also on the Mary Sue: The Ethics of Jupiter Ascending, Or why I am not a vegetarian

This is the podcast that made Tansy want to watch the film: Fangirl Happy Hour 4: Bees Don’t Lie (well this and Cranky Aunty Lou’s texts messages which you can’t have a link to)

Please send feedback to us at galacticsuburbia@gmail.com, follow us on Twitter at @galacticsuburbs, check out Galactic Suburbia Podcast on Facebook, support us at Patreon and don’t forget to leave a review on iTunes if you love us!

Dammit, Riggs

We bought the Lethal Weapon set. Oh yes. So far we’ve watched the first three.

imagesOh the bromance. Oh Mel Gibson’s hair.

The third film’s opening credits are to Sting’s “It’s Probably Me,” which smooshy adolescent me thought was incredibly romantic and older cynical me realises is frighteningly stalker-ish. But when I watched the music video, as an extra on the disc (which showed yes, that is Eric Clapton on the guitar), almost all of the scenes it showed were… Riggs and Murtaugh. Fighting, making up, Riggs saving Murtaugh from a bomb, recovering from a fight or an explosion. There’s one bit with Rene Russo (the awesome ‘my scars are better than yours’ scene) but that’s the only time a lady gets in. Other than that, the song (based on its visuals) is actually about non-sexual friendship. Which makes it way more palatable. Although still a little creepy.

Murtaugh is a pretty straightforward family guy, a career cop, does things properly. Riggs, though… well, he might have been that guy, but his wife is killed in a car crash and when we first meet him he’s suicidal and quite unhinged. In the first film, the whole narrative is around Murtaugh being a stable point for Riggs, bringing him back from the ledge (there’s also a drug ring blah blah). It’s a surprisingly sober film as a consequence, and the humour is often a bit uncomfortable because it often stems from Riggs doing something dangerous – and we know full well that it’s because he doesn’t really value his life any more. The second film is not the same. While there’s still mention of the dead wife – we finally find out a bit more about the car crash – Riggs’ craziness has become zaniness. There’s less reason for it; now it’s mostly just comic relief, without actually being revealing of Riggs’ psychology. There’s no reason for taking crazystupid risks; they’re just stunts for stunts’ sakes, at least until another woman is killed and he goes a bit revenge-nuts. The third has a bit less of the crazystupid, and basically no Riggs psychology. In the first film, Riggs bares his soul when Murtaugh makes some crack about not being as willing as Riggs to kill someone, and Riggs replies that it’s the only thing he’s ever been good at. He’s a veteran of the war in Vietnam, he was involved in black ops… so he was a bit screwed up even before Victoria was killed, is the message, and this film gives some hint about exploring how being good at killing might conceivably possibly be used towards the greater good, in a cop. But the rest of the franchise backs the hell away from that idea and moves towards Beverley Hills Cop instead. This is disappointing.

Also, a significant part of Riggs is his hair. Oh those long flowing locks… they’re so very cringeworthy.

Meanwhile, I do not like Leo Getz. He is abrasive and annoying and pointless except for finding occasionally useful information. I presume he’s meant to be some sort of comic relief but it’s no relief to me.

Now, as a white Australian I feel slightly uncomfortable and obviously unqualified to talk about black American issues in reality, but it is interesting to me to consider how they are portrayed in these films. First and foremost, it’s positive (at least it certainly feels that way to me, and if anyone can point to me the ways in which it is problematic I’d really, really like to know!). Please note I do not say ‘equal’ or ‘completely fine’, but still… . In the first film, a black man – Murtaugh – gets instructions from another black man (whose name I admit I did not catch), and there are other black men on the police force. I don’t recall a single instance of racism towards a black person (which is clearly therefore unrealistic; and there is an unpleasant instance of Riggs being racist towards a Chinese-American character). Interestingly, there’s a fleeting but prominent look at the Murtaugh family refrigerator, and it features an anti-Apartheid sticker that was obvious enough that both my darling and I noticed. This was particularly interesting when watching the second film, where the villains are apparently Evil because they’re running drugs and using their diplomatic immunity to get away with their nefarious deeds, but actually they’re the villains because they’re South African. It felt like there was far more emphasis on their attitudes towards black people than there was on drug running. Early on, there’s a scene where the head honcho is talking about the police involved in investigating them – and he describes Murtaugh as a ‘kaffir’. There’s a scene where the same man is explaining in a condescending tone to his secretary just why the police are harassing him – it’s because they don’t like South African policies – and another time when the fact that black men ‘have guns and badges’ is said in such a tone as to suggest ‘… and this will be the end of civilisation as we know it.’ And Riggs is allowed to sleep with the South African woman only after she has disavowed the policies of her country. It’s not a nuanced political film, but it is undoubtedly a political film. The third film has a more problematised view of black Americans, with young black kids getting access to guns and indeed one of them – a friend of Murtaugh’s son – being shot by Murtaugh. But the black kids aren’t shown to be evil villains; if anything they’re more victims of the evil white bent cop, Travis – and the black boss criminal is helpless, just like all the various white criminals and indeed many police, to resist (I’m not saying that this is entirely a good thing, since victimhood isn’t helpful to anyone, but at least they’re not simply coded as Gangsta.) Finally, while there is no interracial sexual relationship, there’s Rianne Murtaugh’s infatuation with Riggs… which Murtagh is aghast at not because of the racial thing, but because it’s his baby daughter and Riggs (and hopefully for the age thing too).

There are a few women in these films. Trish Murtaugh is a sensible woman, supportive of her husband but clearly doing her own thing as well. There are a few female cops – including Jenette Goldstein, who was also in Aliens AND Terminator 2: Judgement Day! You rock lady! Rika is a brief love interest in 2, but the real passion is sparked with Rene Russo. Of course it’s a convention that they initially fight on the job and then fall madly into bed, but I kinda didn’t mind it too much here and I think it’s because of Cole’s professionalism. She is a good cop. She knows her job, she’s passionate about justice, and boy can she kick villains around when she has to. The scene where she and Riggs compare scars? Priceless. The scene where she deals with five baddies and Riggs holds Murtaugh back partly because he knows Cole can deal with it, but mostly because he wants to admire her fighting style? Even better. Her professionalism doesn’t detract from her femininity, for whatever that’s worth, and Riggs is as protective of Murtaugh as he is of Cole. It’s a delight to watch.

Now that we’ve talked about the fun: these films are actually about police brutality. We know that, right? Kinda makes it uncomfortable to think about, doesn’t it?