FRIDA review

[kelley]

marta, if you read my statement again, you'll see that my statement does 
not in any way suggest that what you think it does. I am taking issue with 
you individualist analysis of the film, and I see your individualist 
analysis of the film as _why_ you think it appropriate to call women 
bimbos. and that's regardless as to whether they wear see through clothes 
or don't strike you as particularly intelligent.

Which is what the crits of you were about: calling women bimbos because of 
what they wear is not only moralizing horeshit, but an individualist 
analysis of one form of oppression in these here uuuunited states of 
amereeekkka.

At 11:28 AM 2/1/03 -0800, Marta Russell wrote:
>>At 12:21 PM 2/1/03 -0500, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>
>>>Marta rightly criticized the portrayal of disability in _Frida_ a
>>
>>Do you think she rightly criticized Hayek, though, because that was the 
>>heart of her review and that was why the comment about Hayek's bimboness 
>>was made?
><...>
>Wrong Kelley.  Actually, I did not find out about Salma going to the 
>academy revealing her pubes until after I had written the commentary..the 
>commentary was written BEFORE I knew Salma's dress habits.

You wrote:
"Did Hayek, whose voluptuous eat-me-up body is displayed nude on the big 
screen at every possible opportunity, object to having one of her legs be 
"withered" by reality? For truly Frida's right leg was smaller than her left."

That you called her a bimbo was not surprising at all, given this claim. 
The reason I started this with you is because Thomas Seay couldn't see why 
we were on your case. I spelled it out: you blamed Hayek for the erasure of 
the withered leg and, as you suggest above, it's because she has a 
"voluptuous eat-me-up body".

I called bullshit and provided reasons why.

Kelley