Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010) – Edgar Wright

Introduction

Hi, nice to meet you; my name’s Centuries of Female Subjugation. What? You haven’t heard of me? Bull-fucking-shit, you motherfucker!

Oh, wait, I see the problem here... maybe you’re one of them women-lovin’ faggots in need of a good old fashioned lychin’? Or mayhaps you’re a house-woman what got lost on your way to the kitchen? Either way, if you be needing an education in my story and where I come from, then maybe you should watch this film: Scott Pilgrim vs. Equality.

Characters:

I really like Michael Cera and I was looking forward to the next chance that I’d get to watch him play a socially awkward teenager having difficulty finding love. You can only imagine how disappointed I was when I found out he’d be playing Super Chauvinist (TWENTY-SOMETHING) Scott Pilgrim who is, in fact, too successful with women. Jeffrey Tambor’s rolling over in his fucking grave, Michael.

The other characters in the film are relatively unimportant, as ‘awesome’ Scott is the centre-piece, pitted against various former co-stars and a repellent Jason Schwartzman, he murders people for money in order to, in a very Ancient Greek way, ‘win’ his ‘prize’ Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead – no, I don’t know who the fuck she is either). Kieran Culkin makes an appearance as Scott’s gay flatmate, who’s by far the most likeable character, maintaining morally ambiguous affairs with closet homosexuals and a Sartre-esque polyamorous tryst with a boyfriend. He looks good, too, which is a bonus, as Michael Cera seems to be evolving in to some sort of preternatural bird-type-creature.

In old pictures women were killed for being witches

Plot:

To get Flowers to fuck him Pilgrim has to fight all of her ex-boyfriends/girlfriend, who have all vowed to serve Schwartzman (I refuse to use his character’s name). This is fine as a premise, I guess, and it’s reasonably entertaining. There are allusions to the original comic (which I haven’t read) and the game that came out (which I haven’t played), and I found myself mainly either wanting to go and read a comic book, or play the incredible No More Heroes for the Wii. The cinematography doesn’t break any fucking records for innovation (not like [content of film aside] the excellent comic-book representation that is Sin City) and they lap on the onomatopoeic words ad nauseum; fuck, I can even forgive the film for having Schwartzman in it... but I cannot forgive the film’s portrayal of women.

Some women went to prison, I assume

Now, I’m not a feminist, but I do believe in equality. In the grim darkness of the recent past, the producers of this film didn’t. They thought that we were still in Mad Men times, or something, and that people can get away with this kind of shit. Well, they can’t. This film makes women look like powerless fuckholes who cannot defend themselves and are easily swayed by the opinion of man - neigh, literally controlled by them. Towards the end of the film, Scott is killed – basically because he says that he is going to fight in order to win Flowers. The film refers to this as ‘love’. When Scott has a Christ-like resurrection he gets back to the same point, where Flowers (who has been brainwashed by the decrepit Schwartzman) it being held captive; at this point what he should have said was not:

“I’m doing this because I want to win her.” [non verbatim], which is what he initially said.

But:

“I’m doing this so that she may have the right to choose.” This is the whole point, right? I could only assume this is where the film was heading...

What he actually says is:

“I’m doing this for me.”

What the fuck? So, he starts off doing it so that he can own her, because he’s defeated all the people who previously did, but he changes his mind and does it for completely selfish reasons? It’s okay, because I guess as a woman Flowers gets a choice in this. Oh, no, she doesn’t. After breaking the heart of the celestial child that he was previously dating He is expected to do battle with his evil self, but they make friends instead. This summarises what a morally void and unlikeable ‘awesome’ guy he is.

It’s funny, because I wonder how long it will be before Scott Pilgrim moves on after he’s got the fuck he was after. I think he’ll go crawling back to Culkin, who won’t take him in because he’s too worried about his abstract brother, and Scott Pilgrim will just go back (at the age of twenty-seven, let’s say) to hanging around catholic schools hoping to pick up kids, because THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN THE FUCKING FILM.

Conclusion:

You [k]now [k]now.

It was an enjoyable film, but due to its consistent oppression of women at the hands of men I hope that come 2012 the world is left to a better hand than that of man.

Positive: Sort of fun.

Negative: Genuinely sexist. Like, more sexist than I am.

Best line: Pilgrim [to Schwartzman]: “You’re pretentious.” LOL! Yeah, he is!

Out of ten: FIVE (lost a mark because of the sexism)