Skip to main content

Reply From Sarah Churchwell

Eyewear is glad to live in the digital age where replies can be fairly immediate. Dr. Sarah Churchwell (pictured) has kindly replied to my post on her column on The Bourne series (and agreed it may be reprinted here). Her complete email of today is below:

Dear Todd,
Thank you for your comment, which I read with interest.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the film, for the most part, although I'm not generally leaping onto the 'greatest thriller since le Carré' bandwagon. I think they are enjoyable films, and I have a lot of time for Matt Damon, who I think is a very intelligent and interesting actor. I found this film fun but so deeply silly that it is hard for me to take it seriously as a moral statement of any kind, except in so far as it is about taking responsibility, an idea which it deals with consistently, if rather overtly for my taste. But that's not a criticism, necessarily, it's just not my cup of tea to have things explained so carefully to me.
As for why I didn't give credit to what I like about the film -- I'm afraid that was for a very banal and demoralizing reason, called space. In fact the piece was edited for space after I wrote it (a very common occurrence) cutting out another 100 or so words I wrote, mostly about the novels, and the fact that Marie becomes less capable over the course of the books as well. But it wasn't a review and I simply wasn't given the room to give the film its due, which I would happily have done with either more space, or a different remit. But on the whole I think it's an enjoyable franchise, although I thought this installment had too many holes. (Why would a top-ranking black ops agent running from the CIA travel under his own passport, for starters?)
My point was simply that Stiles's character doesn't do anything useful, and I'm afraid I find it hard to see that she ever "acts quickly and expertly." When would that be? When she signed onto the CIA computer using her own name so they could trace her? When she rattled door handles? Dismantling her mobile phone so Bourne could follow her was mildly intelligent, but hardly expert. The washcloth? Dying her hair?
All I'm saying is that I can't see any reason why the script couldn't have given her a skill, an ability, an ingenious decision, anything. That wouldn't have been inconsistent with her lowly status as junior agent. She could still know how to do something other than rattle doors. I can't see what she was doing in the film at all, except to give Jason the chance to rescue her. The character has no function in the plot at all other than that, and I found it exasperating and unnecessary to watch a woman standing around being pointless and looking worried. It gets annoying.
The word misogyny never appears in my article; headlines are editorial. I don't actually think it's misogynistic either -- I just think it's tedious. Editors try to stir pots with headlines; it's their job.
Good luck with your site.
Best wishes,


Sarah

---
Dr Sarah Churchwell
Senior Lecturer in American Literature and Culture
School of American Studies
University of East Anglia
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DANGER, MAN

Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…

AMERICA PSYCHO

According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…

SEXTON SHORTLIST!

Announcing the Shortlist for the 2016 Sexton PrizeSeptember 13, 2016 / By Kelly Davio
Eyewear Publishing is pleased to announce the shortlist for the 2016 Sexton Prize. The finalists are, in no particular order, as follows:


THE BARBAROUS CENTURY, Leah Umansky
HISTORY OF GONE, Lynn Schmeidler
SEVERE CLEAR, Maya Catherine Popa
GIMME THAT. DON’T SMITE ME, Steve Kronen
SCHEHERAZADE AND OTHER REDEPLOYMENTS, David McAleavey
AN AMERICAN PURGATORY, Rebecca Gayle Howell
SIT IN THE DARK WITH ME, Jesse Lee Kercheval

The shortlist was selected by Eyewear’s Director Todd Swift with Senior Editor Kelly Davio. Don Share of Poetry Magazine will select the winning manuscript, which will be released at the 2017 AWP conference in Washington, D.C. The winner will be announced in October. 
Congratulations to our finalists!