Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    They left out Sorsha's turning point in the movie which was a major
    step in the movie. 
    
    
    Spoiler warning: ************************************
    
   
    
    
    The reason Sorsha turned against her mother is because (this is
    explained in the book), when the group of weary travelers come to
    Tir Asleen, there are folks encased in stone.  One of the people
    encased in stone is Sorsha's father.  She realises that the stone
    encasement is her mother's doing, and she had thought all along
    that her father left her (and her mother) because he didn't love
    her - she didn't know until then that her mother (Bavmorda) "stoned"
    all the people at Tir Asleen, including her 'estranged' husband. 

    I thought it was a super movie as well! but I did get confused
    on Sorsha's motives. Thank's -1 for explaining that! ;-)
    I was surprised on the negative reviews; I think it boils down
    to that it may not be a major artistic acheivement HOWEVER it
    is fun and entertaining!
    Fran
    

    Pauline Kael (sp) reviewed it in The New Yorker and she noted that
    Lucas has just gone thru a nasty, expensive (I'll bet!) divorce
    and went out and made a movie where women have all the power.
    
    I haven't seen it yet but intend to.
    
    Tamzen

    
    re: .0
    
    > What none of these reviewers seem to have mentioned is that this
    is a film about decisive women and dithering men.
    
    "Dithering men.."  Is this the basis of your reccomendation for seeing
    this movie?  I was looking foward to viewing it this weekend, but now
    I'm not so sure.  
    
      Thanks for the cheap shot.
    
                                     Ron - Non-dithering man

    no, no, no.
    
    The reason you should see it is because it has good special effects,
    Val Kilmer is great in his role, the brownies are a laugh a minute,
    and vaguely reminiscent of two characters from a Happy Days spin-off
    (thanks, Ron Howard), and the music is by James Horner, who has scored
    "Krull" and several of the "Star Trek" movies, among other things.
     The characters are not cardboard, and pseudo-slapstick fantasy
    movies are rare.  This one was worth the money (twice, in my case),
    and the baby IS adorable (although I'm generally not one for babies).

    -Jody
    
    p.s.  having powerful women is great, but in this movie they don't do
    everything...the women do most of the magic - the men do most of the
    fighting - they each have their role. 
    

    
    re: .5
    
        I defer to you Jody.  You are correct, and those are all good 
    reasons to see the movie.  Thank you.
     
                                           Ron

	Actually, I was impressed by the casting in general.  While there
	are the requisite beautiful female/gorgeous male roles, the 'main'
	characters are not typical heroic types.  (Note: I'm referring to
	Hollywood stereotypes here :-)  I'd expected more from something 
	Ron Howard was involved in, and was pleased to find it!

		Helen

	(more 'spoiler' discussion follows <FF>)

	I mean, really, the major characters are a baby, a lot of 'little
	people' [apologies and correction requested if this is not the 
	preferred term!], and an old woman.  (I really liked that touch - she'd 
	aged while transformed and the once-beautiful young woman we were led 
	to expect was now an old woman (though still beautiful))  Not that I'm
	objecting to the others - 'specially the rogue-turned-hero....;-)

	BTW, that baby was actually twins, according to the credits.  And
	she IS adorable - it must have taken a lot of patience to catch some of
	those wonderful expressions and edit them in at the appropriate points.

	Can you tell I liked it? :-)
		H

    God, I love this notes file! -- women helping me to see things
    differently.  
    
    Thanks, Ann.
    
    Briana

    hmmm ... many men might have just "enjoyed" the movie without
    finding any deeper meaning in strengths of male/female parts.

    Is it a service to tell folks what hidden meanings to find in
    a fantasy?  Doesn't that to some extent shape their feelings?

    Maybe some men will just go see Crocodile Dundee Part II now.
    Many of us still enjoy a "fantasy" about strong male images.

    /~~e~~\  Eagles_Often_Enjoy_Stereotype_Situation_Comedies_2_!

    I love Crocodile Dundee -- it's so much fun to fantasize that I'm
    fighting wild animals, beating up on criminals, and making the world
    safe for Swan Lager.... 
    
    --b

I've seen "Willow" twice so far (once with Rachel [3.5] when Merle was out of
town, and once more with Merle (and Rachel again.))  Anyway, we all liked the
movie a lot.

Because Lucas wouldn't let them see the movie in its final form before it
opened to the public, the critics [or at least many of them] are boycotting
it and giving it bad reviews even though they haven't seen it.  I really don't
think it is fair to trash a movie you haven't seen.  I think it is a
"Hollywood System vs. Lucas/Spielberg" war.  [People *like their movies a lot*,
which gives them financial and therefore creative & political independence from
Hollywood.  Those with an interest in the Hollywood System (unions, critics,
the Academy) then get back however they can: no "real" Oscars, bad reviews.
Maybe it is also the "fine art is real art (only critics can understand it);
illustration/craft/folk-art is not (it is useful/communicative/transparent)"
argument.  SIGH...]

As for "derivative", putting old pieces together in new ways is interesting.
How many movies are *not* "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl"?

It is interesting that Willow's [the viewpoint character's!] village had
traditional roles for men & women -- at least in Willow's house and in the
village council -- but women controlled the other realms which Willow traveled
through: the "evil empire", the forest (the brownies etc.).  How about the
faltering "good empire" -- did they say who the leader was/had been?

I also thought that Sorsha was a great character, but I agree that a little less
"cardboard" would have helped.  The cut scenes sound as if they would have
helped to fix it.  (Also, her black, Japanese-style armor *looked* very good.)

I also liked a similar character, Valeria in "Conan the Barbarian"/the movie.
Strong; independent; fighting as a partner with the man she fell in love with,
as in Tacitus.  (The Germani? or...?)

I'll digress too far if I mention St. Alia in the 2nd-3rd "Dune" books -- it
was a long time ago and my memory is fogging at this late hour.

    Thanks, Aron.  I knew that; I just hadn't realized how, well,
    dishonest this could make people.  And Kael's claim that Lucas
    wrote this as the result of a bad divorce did not jibe with
    another reviewer's claim that he had been working on this plotline
    for fifteen years (and shouldn't have bothered).
    
    							Ann B.

    
    Re Pauline Kael's, SIskel and Ebert's negative reviews...
    
    The wicked queen's champion (the one with the skull mask) was 
    named Kael.  And the beastie was nicknamed "Sisbert" during
    production.

    re: .13
    
    I mentioned this "Sisbert" rumor in the discussion of this movie in
    the NAC::SF conference and someone replied that in the novelization it
    was called the Ebersisk.  The creature was a two-headed monster.
    
    							-- Mikey
    

    re:.5
    
    The Brownies reminded me of Lenny & Squiggy, too.
    
    re:.7
    
    Almost every time a baby plays a significant role in a film, its
    played by twins. Child labor laws only allow children to work a
    short time each day, so swapping twins enables the filmmakers to
    spend twice as much time filming scenes with the child.
    
    re:.9
    
    �Is it a service to tell folks what hidden meanings to find in a
    fantasy?  Doesn't that to some extent shape their feelings?�
    
    No more so than *any* review shapes *anyone's* feelings about seeing
    a film. Even without Ann's note, it's obvious that women are the
    "movers and shakers" in this film -- as obvious as it was in ALIENS.
    Willow himself is about the only male character who has any real
    significance in the story (other male characters make essential
    contributions, certainly, but they as individuals aren't really
    important). The true significance of this fact lies not in that
    with WILLOW (and ALIENS before it) we are given a movie in which
    the strongest characters are the women, but that this was done in
    two films that aren't "wimmen's films", but ones in which the sex
    of the characters isn't particularly relevant and is almost always
    male.
    
    (You know, come to think of it, SLEEPING BEAUTY is another good
    film of this type. The Prince is certainly significant, but all
    of the other important characters -- the Princess, Maleficent, and
    the three good fairies -- are women.)
    
    It's nice that there was *some* explanation for Sorsha's change
    of heart. It seemed a tad abrupt. There *was* a remark early in
    the film from one of Bavmorda's mages that hinted of a treachery
    on Sorsha's part, but in retrospect, that seems like a afterthought
    that was tossed in to explain Sorsha's defection. I can't say I
    care much for the explanation given, but such is life.
    
    --- jerry

    I found it amusing that the little boy in back of me, age 3 or 4,
    insisted that the baby MUST be a little boy.   Interesting how 
    early kids consider gender important.