quote:Was the "instant love" angle a little poorly handled? Sure. Was the forced love plot merely jammed in there because it's a Hollywood convention? Of course. But there was nothing sexist about the movie, in relation to a normal mainstream release...
So we agree that there was a poorly-handed instant love angle, forced in there because it's a Hollywood convention? And agree that there was nothing more sexist about the movie than the typical mainstream release?
The difference is that you don't seem to think that's a problem. Whereas I think the fact that most mainstream releases are that sexist is in fact a problem worth pointing out, especially when it winds up inserting a sexist and unnecessary romantic subplot into a series that is notable for the opposite. No doubt someone who actually writes criticism from a feminist perspective cares even more deeply about how poorly mainstream releases do in this regard.
quote:Can we make the argument that the original Oz was sexist?
For a given definition of "sexist," sure. I don't use that definition myself, but I think there was a very deliberate decision made to make all the men largely ineffective. If you consider that sexism, that was indeed sexist.
Doesn't this essentially defang the criticism? You and Sam are preaching against this movie from a soapbox. It's all well and good to critique this movie. But the problems are relegated to a reliance on common Hollywood tropes, of which ALMOST ALL current movies are guilty.
Why prey on this specific movie? We can all cry that we wish it was somehow better (because it is Oz?), but judge it against other current movies. Judge it for what it is. It isn't an art piece, it's a mainstream cashgrab. But it's pretty well made for a Disney cashgrab. If you want to take up a crusade, there are much more worthy candidates.
And frankly, I'd say that this movie (at a few points) rises above the cliches and tropes.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doesn't this essentially defang the criticism?
I don't see how. "This movie made a ridiculously common mistake, and it is much poorer for it, especially if you care about the frequent disenfranchisement of women" seems to me to be pretty fanged.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Here's a clue. You want to really understand where academic feminist critique is coming from? Read your Foucault. Also, read some criticisms of Foucault. This article was unable to pass muster with my wife, an intelligent woman who literally has a degree in gender studies. Take a clue from that, and actually do some real scholarship in the area.
Just because some women preach this stuff, doesn't mean you have to buy it wholesale, without examination, in order to understand women. Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
Oh my. That last part is utterly surreal in light of it coming immediately after a pliable call to authority on feminist critique. Like, you tell me about what I need to do re: foucault and then you make a statement about ~modern intellectual feminism~ that brings it into question from what authority you preach? You are, of course, still as welcome as you were before to make my argument better than I can, like you said you could, in terms of the feminist angle; i'm greatly beginning to suspect what will come of that.
quote:Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your wealthy white male status?
Ahaha. No, not even remotely.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Here's a clue. You want to really understand where academic feminist critique is coming from? Read your Foucault. Also, read some criticisms of Foucault. This article was unable to pass muster with my wife, an intelligent woman who literally has a degree in gender studies. Take a clue from that, and actually do some real scholarship in the area.
Just because some women preach this stuff, doesn't mean you have to buy it wholesale, without examination, in order to understand women. Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
Oh my. That last part is utterly surreal in light of it coming immediately after a pliable call to authority on feminist critique. Like, you tell me about what I need to do re: foucault and then you make a statement about ~modern intellectual feminism~ that brings it into question from what authority you preach? You are, of course, still as welcome as you were before to make my argument better than I can, like you said you could, in terms of the feminist angle; i'm greatly beginning to suspect what will come of that.
quote:Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your wealthy white male status?
Ahaha. No, not even remotely.
Yes, I could definitely argue the other side, but Tom stepped in, and is doing well.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I could definitely argue the other side
I simply totally don't believe you, is the issue. You would really simply have to actually do it, as opposed to devoting plenty of energy moving around fulfillment of this claim.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I could definitely argue the other side
I simply totally don't believe you, is the issue. You would really simply have to actually do it, as opposed to devoting plenty of energy moving around fulfillment of this claim.
No, seriously, Tom is doing well. There's some actual thought and content there. While my arguments might be a little more in depth, and less appeal-to-emotiony (which is hilarious coming from me, I realize), he's not failing.
I was kind of hoping somehow we'd end up arguing about cinematography, lighting, makeup, costuming, blocking, etc. as they relate to sexism in film. I know next to nothing about such things (both generally speaking, and as they relate to sexism), but I'm sure at least some people have done some thesis papers on all that. I thought that might be a fun discussion.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:While my arguments might be a little more in depth
I'm sincerely curious about this: would you point to one of your arguments which you believe contained depth?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, seriously, Tom is doing well. There's some actual thought and content there. While my arguments might be a little more in depth, and less appeal-to-emotiony (which is hilarious coming from me, I realize), he's not failing.
You mean where Tom echoes arguments other people have made pages ago? This is so silly it's difficult to determine if you're serious. You're criticizing everyone else and holding Tom up for example when he is reiterating what has already been said.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, seriously, Tom is doing well. There's some actual thought and content there. While my arguments might be a little more in depth, and less appeal-to-emotiony (which is hilarious coming from me, I realize), he's not failing.
I'm going to repeat this very clearly: I simply totally don't believe you. Since by now you are reiterating and hedging in this particular manner, I am hard pressed to believe nearly anyone here does.
The conversation is going pretty much like this.
"I am so good at feminism. I could totally provide your side of the argument better than you are, totally."
"Ok, go ahead."
"You should read up on feminism. I'm telling you, I'd do a better job at arguing your side than you can. I have bona fides, also my feminist wife is here and says"
"Great, if you say you can, do it."
"... Well right now there's simply no need. Tom is here and he's already doing it."
"I don't believe you. You can totally prove it anytime."
" ... No, seriously, Tom is doing fine. Mine,. I'd .. I'd of course be a little more in-depth and a little bit better at it, I don't need to prove it anymore, because he's proving it for me, somehow."
posted
OK, fine. I guess this thread is going to become Discourse Analysis 101, then. I certainly don't know enough about the more technical aspects of film to analyze how they might be used to further various power structures, so I really can't go in that direction. That, then, leaves me with the analysis of language and how it is used to control the disempowered.
Official written policy (especially government policy) of many kinds is rife with examples of subtle low-level emotional manipulation. Word choice is especially important in subtly discouraging certain emotions and reinforcing the desired attitudes.
Many of you are probably familiar with "code-switching", where different languages, speech patterns, accents, and word choices are used in different contexts.
That page deals mainly with switching languages. However, the kind of subtler code-switching that people in this culture (and many others, no doubt) use is more about speaking in/with an accent, vocabulary, and/or tone that will make our audience more comfortable. For example, you don't use the same vocabulary when writing a research paper that you would talking to a young child. If you're from an underprivileged/uneducated area, but are yourself well-educated and literate, you almost certainly use a slightly different accent (and vocabulary) when speaking with an older, uneducated adult from your home area, versus when speaking with someone who is more your equal in literacy and education. Otherwise, you risk alienating or confusing your audience, and reducing the chance for good rapport.
Code-switching has a less-savory side, as well, when it is used specifically to create trust and rapport in order to manipulate. Sleazy salespeople are often good at code-switching. They speak to every customer with the vocabulary and accent they think will create rapport, in order to make the sale.
Government policy (and corporate policy, as well) is often written in very different language from the everyday vernacular of the person actually writing the policy. Subtle choices are made in terms of word choice and phrasing that serve to discourage negative emotions toward the policy and the government, while reinforcing specific impressions and attitudes. Governments, as well as corporations and other institutions, attempt to continually increase their legitimacy in the eyes of the public with their choice of words and phrasing.
This is by no means anything more than the most superficial treatment of the subject. Some of you probably are VERY familiar with it already, and some (especially the younger and more naive) may not have any familiarity with it. Given that, it's a little hard to how exactly the best way to address the subject, with such a wide range of experience.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that, it's a little hard to how exactly the best way to address the subject, with such a wide range of experience.
You could connect what you are describing to us to the subject of the movie and feminism, for starters.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given that, it's a little hard to how exactly the best way to address the subject, with such a wide range of experience.
You could connect what you are describing to us to the subject of the movie and feminism, for starters.
This is why I said that modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically. Analyzing discourse works in every area. You can literally analyze every discourse ever using the same few basic questions, to find out the power relationships and the intent and nature of the innate coercion that is happening.
Of course, feminists of the academic stripe happily took Foucault's techniques and made them widely-used and famous, but that's not why Foucault created them. He was a big leftist back in the day, and his work on discourse analysis was an outgrowth of that.
It would be fairly easy to apply Foucault's techniques to the script itself. Is that what you'd like us to do here?
If so, here are a list of the basic questions you'd ask:
1. Who are the parties involved in the discourse, and which has more power? How is that power exercised, if there were a conflict between the parties?
2. If the power is held by a group, who WITHIN that group is choosing the actual wording of of the discourse?
3. What is left unspoken? why is it unspoken? Are there any implied threats? Are there any assumptions that are believed to be held in common by all involved?
4. Is there any reification happening? I.e., is anyone talking about abstract concepts like 'justice' as if they are real things that can be measured?
5. Is there any emotional language, i.e., appeal to emotion, being used? What is the goal of that?
6. What message does the writer or speaker in the discourse intend you to get from the discourse?
If we're talking about movies, and we are, things like camera angles, lighting, acting, costuming, makeup, etc. also come into play as well. I have no expertise in these areas, so that's certainly an area where I can learn a lot.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, um, are you saying that it's possible to analyze the film from a different perspective and with a different focus, and that this article -- because it didn't do that, choosing instead for multiple reasons to stick with one -- is a failure?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, um, are you saying that it's possible to analyze the film from a different perspective and with a different focus, and that this article -- because it didn't do that, choosing instead for multiple reasons to stick with one -- is a failure?
Well, that's tough to say. I don't necessarily expect an article on jezebel.com that invokes feminism to be able to get an A+ in a gender studies course at Smith. ROFL
However, one would hope it could do better than a D+. HOPE. Not expect. It is jezebel.com, not...michel-foucault.com, or something like that.
Yes, I'm being a bit unrealistic, given the context.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm waiting for the point in which you actually argue the other side. Like, provide an argument. Not open-ended discourse analysis.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm waiting for the point in which you actually argue the other side. Like, provide an argument. Not open-ended discourse analysis.
Wait. You STILL don't think I can apply the discourse analysis tools to the script? If you want me to, I am willing to take a stab, I guess. Dude, the movie is lame. However, as long as the script is posted online, I can probably take the first 10-15 pages or so, and do an analysis.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You STILL don't think I can apply the discourse analysis tools to the script?
No one has asked you to do that. In fact, you are the only person here who has suggested that defending the article's feminist criticisms of the new OZ film would require any form of academic analysis at all.
In fact, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are conflating feminism with literary criticism from a feminist viewpoint, which is not at all the same thing (but is, I suppose, a position that's understandable from someone who married two people who fell for "Gender Studies" hard enough to actually waste a college degree on it.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Between the three of you, this thread is more full of pseudo-intellectual hot air than a hot air balloon convention held by the NRA.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I firmly reject the assertion that I have been in any way intellectual -- or displayed much if any education whatsoever -- over the course of this thread.
On the other hand, your own "so it's sexist, but so is everything else; big whoop" position remains just as lazy and reprehensible as it started out being. The idea that the author is making much ado about nothing because the problems she sees in the film are endemic to our society and should therefore not be valid grounds for criticism is, frankly, something that I encounter often on the Internet, and it's the worst sort of blinder-wearing cluelessness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think there's something disproportionate about getting deeply incensed about these media representation issues. "Big whoop" isn't very far from my own attitude. Not because everyone does it--that's certainly beside the point--but because the harm done is relatively minor.
There are things wrong with the world that have the potential to end our species. Focusing on these minor issues of fairness instead is, to me, a sign of moral tunnel vision.
I realize that many people think "Let's focus on the big problems to the exclusion of the small ones" is a mistaken perspective, but I disagree. It's extremely vogue these days for activists to spend their time trying to fine-tune the ethical details of pop culture, while very few have any interest in the real threats to civilization. That is sad. I'm always interested to read articles that make good points about this sort of issue, but I consider that a pure intellectual pursuit. It's a waste of time to become an activist about these issues.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I realize that many people think "Let's focus on the big problems to the exclusion of the small ones" is a mistaken perspective, but I disagree.
I don't. For one thing, I don't think having more people making noise about the big problems is likely to actually produce solutions to the big problems.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the contrary, I think problems like nuclear proliferation, climate change and especially international poverty are much easier to solve than the moral deficits in US pop culture. We at least know what it would take to solve these problems (in the case of the latter two: money), whereas our understanding of the social science surrounding issues like gender and implicit bias is barely beginning to develop.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a lot of ways, we don't even know what the scope of the harm from these social ills actually is, because we don't have a very good understanding of how people actually react to media messages.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We at least know what it would take to solve these problems (in the case of the latter two: money)
I've got to confess that I find this position rather staggeringly naive, since standing in the way of throwing money at those problems are, well, social problems.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But people can contribute to solving them by making judicious use of their own money.
Anyway, if you want to argue that the small problems deserve our attention at the expense of the big ones, you should show not only that the big problems are unsolvable, but further, that the small ones are solvable.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, man. Do you really think that's more likely than, say, we stop treating women like crap? If there's anything more ingrained in us than bigotry, it's selfishness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question isn't how we treat women, in the sense of actual discrimination, the question is how women are portrayed in popular media and what affect that actually has. In many ways, I think we just don't know, so it's too early to spend a lot of effort solving the problem.
By analogy: until very recently, it wasn't even understood what caused mental illness or how to treat it. So spending a lot of effort on trying to cure it rather than study it would have been a mistake. I think social ills like implicit bias and stereotyping (as opposed to overt sexism or racism) are in a similar place right now in terms of our understanding of their causes and effects.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A comparison. Do we need, like, scientific studies to come out before it's safe to conclude something like Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's is something which is Bad and Should Not Be Done because of how it promotes negative stereotypes that do harm with its portrayal of an entire group?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is the soapbox rhetoric of "let's pretend to review this movie, but instead we'll point at it as an affront to feminism and an outright blasphemy full of misogyny".
That's all well and good. And there's a time and a place for a discussion. But at least pick a movie that's worthy of it. Can no one make the argument that ridiculous over-the-top feminist portrayals such as Snow White and the Huntsman are FAR more damaging than a movie (like this) whose only crime is to have a male main character?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
I'm not saying that in the Mickey Rooney case we don't know whether there's any harm being done whatsoever, I'm saying we don't yet know enough to tell whether potential cures might be worse than the disease.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can no one make the argument that ridiculous over-the-top feminist portrayals such as Snow White and the Huntsman are FAR more damaging than a movie (like this) whose only crime is to have a male main character?
I imagine that stupid people could make that argument. But I don't think it's true, in either particular: that Snow White was egregiously harmful to feminism, or that the only "crime" of OZ was to have a male protagonist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
I sincerely hope that figuring out that mickey rooney's yellowface portrayal in that movie was an ugly bad racist thing that shouldn't be done is something only lefties will get right.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a great article on the sexism in Snow White and the Huntsman, but I can't find it. Here are two with some of the same points, albeit watered down:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
I sincerely hope that figuring out that mickey rooney's yellowface portrayal in that movie was an ugly bad racist thing that shouldn't be done is something only lefties will get right.
It was somewhat wince-worthy in an otherwise lovely film.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not, but I think by focusing on such a clear case you ignore important complexities that are present in most other cases. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a great work of art that we'd be worse off without. I think everyone can agree that it would be wrong to dictate to the filmmakers how to practice their craft with the force of law. The force of social opprobrium is a different, more complicated matter. But I'm generally suspicious of using shaming to silence or divert artistic voices.
The Rooney performance is offensive, by my own standards at least, but I don't think it's healthy to have a culture in which artists are overly worried about who their work might offend. Whether the portrayal of stereotypes has negative effects on culture is another, more serious question--but it's a very difficult question for social scientists to investigate. Even more difficult is the question of what might work better than the way we do things now.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A tougher case that might be good to think about is the Vietnamese hooker in Full Metal Jacket. That character was obviously intended as an exaggerated criticism of American attitudes toward Asians rather than as a joke playing off stereotypes. But what people remember about the movie is "Me love you long time." It's very possible that the negative social effect has been at least as great as the Rooney character's. Does that make FMJ, or that character, a Bad Thing?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is the soapbox rhetoric of "let's pretend to review this movie, but instead we'll point at it as an affront to feminism and an outright blasphemy full of misogyny".
That's all well and good. And there's a time and a place for a discussion. But at least pick a movie that's worthy of it. Can no one make the argument that ridiculous over-the-top feminist portrayals such as Snow White and the Huntsman are FAR more damaging than a movie (like this) whose only crime is to have a male main character?
First of all, that's not what happened. Or exactly who would be taken aback to discover a review of a film that also dabbles heavily in gender roles, sexism, feminism, etc., on that website? Soapbox rhetoric? That's generally not what it's called when you have to go out of your way to visit the soapbox.
Second, of course portrayals such as in those films aren't 'far more damaging', or is there a rash of female-to-male violence, underpayment for employment for men versus women, sexual assaults, so on and so forth? 'Far more damaging'...what exactly IS the 'damage' of those portrayals? Or is your point that their efforts to be feminist backfired? And in case you weren't paying attention, not a single person suggested Oz was particularly 'damaging' at all, rather that it was symptomatic of larger problems.
Third, the only problem was not that the main character was male. It's been discussed so many times in this thread it's difficult to see how you might've missed it.
---------
quote:Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
Sure, something to worry about, but the sort of thing people on the other side of the fence are talking about might be phrased as: "How is it that decades of a chilling effect in mass media storytelling wherein female characters who are consistently male-focused and second to the male characters is business as usual; criticism that a film embodies this sort of attitude is a 'chilling effect'?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again . . . far more detailed analysis than is required for a popcorn flick. Do you stay up at night arguing the symbolism of Pink Floyd with your stoner friends?
Just saying, the blowhard diatribe of feminist analysis would be better suited in another thread. The intent of this one was to rag on people who criticized a movie tangentially when they hadn't seen it. Oh wait . . . maybe this IS the right thread.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aros, I'm not sure what you think is wrong with subjecting a popcorn movie, or any other work of art, to analysis. If you're not interested in these questions, move along. If you think people are saying wrong things, go ahead and present your objections.
quote:Sure, something to worry about, but the sort of thing people on the other side of the fence are talking about might be phrased as: "How is it that decades of a chilling effect in mass media storytelling wherein female characters who are consistently male-focused and second to the male characters is business as usual; criticism that a film embodies this sort of attitude is a 'chilling effect'?"
I'm not sure if there was a chilling effect, in the same sense, as opposed to art imitating life in a rather unfortunate way. As you say, business as usual. Did critics used to attack films for portraying female characters as too strong or central to the story?
Anyway, I have no problem whatsoever with criticizing the movie on these grounds. What I have a problem with is people acting like such criticism is of great moral importance in the big scheme of things, or that any idiot can understand exactly what broader social consequences these movies have and what to do about them. Even worse is when people suggest that filmmakers should be shamed or boycotted for their work.
Criticizing implicit moral messages in a movie is an interesting and somewhat important pursuit. Arguing that the movie shouldn't have been made because of those moral messages is (I think) ethically simplistic and disrespectful of artists' role in society. Their job is not to create work that serves or embodies the virtues we're supposed to admire. Their job is to create art as best they can.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Again . . . far more detailed analysis than is required for a popcorn flick. Do you stay up at night arguing the symbolism of Pink Floyd with your stoner friends?
No, but if a thread got really into the subject of the symbolism of Pink Floyd and this was a subject I had interest in and it seemed to provoke a lot of debate, I would sure make posts about it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the movie should not have been made, but it's really a good thing to point out that there are lame things about it which should be brought up in the hopes that future movies aren't lame about it.
Everyone benefits, if even just from breaking up the monotony of pliant objectified gendered roles in movies.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a good thing, but it's not so good that you should do it and then pat yourself on the back for doing the Lord's work, while the truly underprivileged people of this world suffer and starve. And I get the feeling that a lot of 20-something slacktivists are doing just that (grumble grumble).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I suspect slacktivism crosses all generational boundaries and we'll see that as the older generations are gradually those that are also tech savvy. I think it's likely because the problem isn't 'people focus too much on small things' but rather 'people like to feel good about themselves and also often are reluctant to do hard, thankless work.'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
