Ajaldjfalsidjfalskmdcasfq

ggjdtdkuguasfjalskdjflaskdjflaskdfjsaldfjsdf;aowhecewnweoi.

Didn’t understand that? Ok. That’s basically Pontypool’s point — language can sometimes be dangerous. Besides this, however, though it may not have been very obvious, the film had subtle ideas about gender that operated within the plot. It would be best to do this through a character examination.

Men, as theorized, are penetrators. By this, I mean that they always take the more aggressive and forceful role, where they feel that they are permeating another being in one way or another. One would notice this in the film in the way that Mazzy was so dominant a character. Sydney, on the other hand, was trying to get her way in her own “womanly way” — no force, no violence, so to speak. Laurel-Ann seemed more of the submissive type of female (not to be seen as strong in the least), who was naively “in-love” or “in admiration” with Massey somewhat. It was depressing to see her sacrifice certain media ethics in order to please him, as when she sent him news as soon as she received it without confirming the truth beforehand. It’s the same for all the women who find themselves in relationships to be the one who sacrifices, the one who pleases, the one who is compromised. I find that to be monstrous in itself. Laurel-Ann, the weak, submissive, and compromising female character— and it doesn’t stop there. Given these characteristics, she is the first victim among the main characters to get the virus. Sends a message, doesn’t it? Weakness equals monster equals sickness equals death. It’s a little long and maybe even an illogical process, but something the audiences may definitely understand.

And why was it that Massey was the one who figured out the whole scenario? Why was it that it was him, and not Sydney or maybe even both? He seemed like such an arrogant and annoying character to me, since he was all manly and just so overconfident, yet he ended up being the savior of the both of them, maybe the savior of everyone else. Sydney became his “right hand,” as are all women/wives seen. Such an objectified gender, we women are.

And what was that word replacement of kill is kiss? Was it something to lure Sydney in? Was it a beguiling manly way to do the whole “i just want to get laid” objective? Understanding language went alongside the idea of understanding gender and understanding the nuances of male and female interaction. In any case, it was a movie that said much, much more than just a;liwjfaoijc;jal;sjajfiowejfowme.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s