Promising Young Woman

[Sabin]

It’s the “bad drag” part. It can’t be taken any other way. The role would invite comparisons to Margot Robbie if she wasn’t the executive producer. It’s clear what’s happening. He’s criticizing her effectiveness as a femme fatale. He’s missing the point that she isn’t a femme fatale. She’s a date rape victim who acts like one. I have no idea why he’s doubling down. Very foolish. This could’ve blown away easily.

Considering her reaction was incredibly measured as well, I don’t see how this negatively affects her in any significant way. Anyone who would be offended by her comments wouldn’t like the movie anyway. The controversy only makes the film seem more needed. I say this as someone who is a little mixed on the film.

[Big Magilla]

All of that is true, but this is the supposedly offensive passage in the review:

"Mulligan, a fine actress, seems a bit of an odd choice as this admittedly many-layered apparent femme fatale — Margot Robbie is a producer here, and one can (perhaps too easily) imagine the role might once have been intended for her. Whereas with this star, Cassie wears her pickup-bait gear like bad drag; even her long blonde hair seems a put-on. The flat American accent she delivers in her lowest voice register likewise seems a bit meta, though it’s not quite clear what the quote marks around this performance signify. Still, like everything here, this turn is skillful, entertaining and challenging, even when the eccentric method obscures the precise message. “Promising Young Woman” is often at its most inspired when contradicting itself — one of the grimmest scenes here is accompanied by something utterly incongruous from “The King and I,” and the frisson between image and song is so flummoxing it’s rather brilliant."

The review stood for 11 months from January to December until Mulligan complained to the New York Times, after which Variety issued this disclaimer that now appears before the review:

"EDITOR’S NOTE: Variety sincerely apologizes to Carey Mulligan and regrets the insensitive language and insinuation in our review of “Promising Young Woman” that minimized her daring performance."

This was her complaint to the Times' Kyle Buchanan:

“I read the Variety review, because I’m a weak person,” Mulligan said. “And I took issue with it.” She paused, debating whether she really wanted to go there. “It felt like it was basically saying that I wasn’t hot enough to pull off this kind of ruse,” she said, finally.

Mulligan can still recite some of the lines from that review. But she said, “It wasn’t some sort of ego-wounding thing — like, I fully can see that Margot Robbie is a goddess.” What bothered Mulligan most was that people might read a high-profile critique of any actress’s physical appearance and blithely accept it: “It drove me so crazy. I was like, ‘Really? For this film, you’re going to write something that is so transparent? Now? In 2020?’ I just couldn’t believe it.”

It’s all the more ironic for Mulligan because “Promising Young Woman” explicitly grapples with the litany of cultural expectations about how a woman ought to look and behave. There’s even a man who calls Cassie beautiful and then, in the same breath, gives her a disingenuous lecture about why she’s wearing too much makeup.

“We don’t allow women to look normal anymore, or like a real person,” Mulligan said. “Why does every woman who’s ever onscreen have to look like a supermodel? That has shifted into something where the expectation of beauty and perfection onscreen has gotten completely out of control.”

All good points, and maybe it will all boil over, but there are likely to be two schools of though on this. On one hand, fellow actors may cheer on her on, but others may see it as an overly sensitive reaction. No one is siding with Variety's censoring of their critic 11 months after the fact, possibly as an inducement to get Mulligan to appear in one of their actresses on actresses interviews with Zandaya (now streaming on Amazon and IMDb.)

This is a brouhaha that could affect Oscar votes to the point that it isn't about the performance, but about the reaction to it. That's all I'm saying.

[FilmFan720]

I second everything Wesley just said. This trend of criticism to focus on looks and age in deciding if someone is giving a good performance drives me nuts. We need to move beyond the John Simon type of reviewing. And that Variety review is infuriating.

[OscarGuy]

Here's the problem with men discussing whether someone is hot enough to be raped. It's so sexist it hurts.

It's not the attractiveness of the subject, it's vulnerability. This is why the film is so important. Back in the mid-90s and in defense of Bill Clinton in numerous situations after, people openly wondered why Monica Lewinski, who they didn't consider that attractive, was a target of Clinton's advances. It wasn't about how attractive the person was, she was still a victim of a powerful man who used his position to seduce and exact sexual favors from a woman. Rape and sexual assault are more about perceived vulnerability and the abuse of positions of power. Promising Young Woman doesn't require someone to be "I'd do her" hot, they just need her to make herself vulnerable enough that supposedly upstanding men would do inappropriate or awful things.

In the film, you have many different types of male archetypes, some of them seemingly reasonable and supposedly sympathetic. Yet, to a one, they all have that one defining quality, they don't think they are sexist or rapists or anything of the kind. And that's precisely why the film is so potent. It's that notion that "not all men" are sleazebags. Well, as this thread is starting to prove, sure, it's not all men, but the way men defend themselves when they've said or done something questionable or awful showcases the patriarchal superiority complex men seem to have. Attractiveness is immaterial.

And, something I doubt many would have brought up in their reviews of the film, but the college gang rape at the center of the film, which leads to Mulligan's attempt to expose and repel those who would defend such awfulness, is incredibly similar to the situation that was exposed when now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanagh was rammed through congress on a party-line vote. It's the same kind of defense that's used when Promising Young Men are given slaps on the wrist when they do unspeakably horrible things to women. It's why the title itself is a play on words. People care what happens to Promising Young Men, but they don't seem to give the same support and defense to Promising Young Women.

So, I think it's important that you take away this lesson: beauty has ZERO to do with someone being a victim of rape. Date rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct are all about power and that's why I don't think any of you give Promising Young Women enough credit.

[Big Magilla]

It could hurt her chances of what might otherwise be an easy Oscar win.

It will not hurt her chances a jot. If anything, her colleagues will rally around her.

I mean, Mulligan just did what all AMPAS members wish they could have done many times before. Why would that COST her support??

We shall see what we shall see.

[Reza]

This is troubling.

Mulligan's renewed attacks on the Variety critic whose review appeared a year ago when the film played Sundance, and Variety's basically throwing him under the bus, make her look like a pampered prima donna. She accused him of saying she "wasn't hot enough" for the role, which is not what he said in his mostly high praised review of the film. It could hurt her chances of what might otherwise be an easy Oscar win.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/j ... ccusations

That critic did make a valid point. Compared to Margot Robbie (a producer on the project? And someone more likely to have made a better impact in the part) Mulligan doesn't quite come off as the femme fatale she was attempting to play especially during the sequences where she picks up men and seduces them. Her look and persona just does not ring true in those scenes. The critic absolutely nails it in his description of Mulligan - "Cassie wears her pickup-bait gear like bad drag; even her long blonde hair seems a put-on.” And that's so not "hot" in scenes where she is supposed to look "hot" to those men she is coming on to.

I can understand why Mulligan is so peeved

[Sonic Youth]

It could hurt her chances of what might otherwise be an easy Oscar win.

It will not hurt her chances a jot. If anything, her colleagues will rally around her.

I mean, Mulligan just did what all AMPAS members wish they could have done many times before. Why would that COST her support??

[Big Magilla]

This is troubling.

Mulligan's renewed attacks on the Variety critic whose review appeared a year ago when the film played Sundance, and Variety's basically throwing him under the bus, make her look like a pampered prima donna. She accused him of saying she "wasn't hot enough" for the role, which is not what he said in his mostly high praised review of the film. It could hurt her chances of what might otherwise be an easy Oscar win.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2021/j ... ccusations

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
Hysterical was maybe the wrong word I used. It was certainly not implied at the female character and her desire for revenge. I should have used the word overwrought instead (also the same as hysterical by the way) to describe that late in coming third act of the film which I thought was preposterous and felt like something out of a cartoon. Way too over the top.

So, you're mainly talking about the third act? I had problems with that as well. It overall felt too tidy and jokey. I'm not a fan of the third act overall. But in terms of the tone, I think most critics have correctly pointed out that it feels like a lampoon of a B-movie revenge or exploitation films of the 1970s. I think that's quite purposeful.

Reza wrote
I thought Mulligan was trying too hard to fit into the part as written and wasn't convincing enough in portraying that particular person hell bent on revenge. There is too much of the Mulligan sweet off screen persona and not enough venom. She isn't very convincing during her scenes alone with the men after trapping and threatening them. While the men seem conveniently so gullible which is really not the case in reality. Fennel paints these bits with incredibly broad strokes in order to make her point. And I wholeheartedly endorse the message the film gave only didn't think it was presented in a very convincing way. Too many pot holes abound.

I personally found Carey Mulligan perfectly convincing in a role that didn't always live up to her performance. I thought she was very good at playing a woman hellbent on a revenge in a film that is a little more toothless than perhaps it should be. I think there is a disconnect. That's what I responded to but I do think Carey Mulligan is very good at making sense of this confusing.

[Reza]

Reza wrote
I found the whole premise quite prepostrous and just didn't buy into the scenario. Too many potholes in the plot. The film has an important message but says it in such a hysterical way that the whole film seems quite ludicrous. Carey Mulligan is not bad but clearly miscast.

I prefer both McDormand and Kirby in their movies. I'm rooting for Kirby to win the Oscar.

I certainly agree with you on the holes in the script which is why I'm very mixed on the film overall, possibly even leaning negative. However:
- What's preposterous about the premise of a woman wanting to get revenge on men who date rape women by picking them up and teaching them a lesson?
- What is hysterical about how the film conveys its message?
- If Carey Mulligan is so clearly miscast, who would you cast in that role instead?

Hysterical was maybe the wrong word I used. It was certainly not implied at the female character and her desire for revenge. I should have used the word overwrought instead (also the same as hysterical by the way) to describe that late in coming third act of the film which I thought was prepostrous and felt like something out of a cartoon. Way too over the top.

I thought Mulligan was trying too hard to fit into the part as written and wasn't convincing enough in portraying that particular person hell bent on revenge. There is too much of the Mulligan sweet off screen persona and not enough venom. She isn't very convincing during her scenes alone with the men after trapping and threatening them. While the men seem conveniently so gullible which is really not the case in reality. Fennel paints these bits with incredibly broad strokes in order to make her point. And I wholeheartedly endorse the message the film gave only didn't think it was presented in a very convincing way. Too many pot holes abound.

[Sabin]

Big Magilla
I copied the comments from the Official Review Thread of 2020 over because I think this one deserves its own thread.

Thanks, Magilla. Always nice to have film-related conversations on this board!

Big Magilla
Mulligan's performance is the best of the year. In a perfect world she would win the Oscar hands down, but this is not a perfect world. It's hard to believe but Sissy Spacek failed to get a Golden Globe nomination for Carrie even though Piper Laurie was nominated in support. They actually thought Sarah Miles in The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea and Glenda Jackson in The Incredible Sarah deserved nominations more. The following year, Oscar, and just about everyone else at the time, thought Diane Keaton was more worthy of an award for playing herself in Annie Hall than she was for giving the performance of her life in Looking for Mr. Goodbar. On the other hand, they did give an Oscar to Jodie Foster for playing a rape victim in The Accused, so there's hope. Mulligan could well be the odds-on favorite she deserves to be by the time the nominations are announced.

I think Carey Mulligan is probably a lock for an Oscar nomination. The film has become something of a strong conversation piece as of late and one of the few films this past year to accomplish that feat. I have a very hard time imagining that even if voters are scared off by the film that they will find five other stronger contenders to rally around, especially in a year that doesn't seem to have a strong favorite. I think Mulligan would have a stronger chance if the Hollywood Foreign Press considered it a Comedy/Musical (in which case she would be a solid lock to win).

I think she's getting nominated. I could also see her winning. Right now, it seems like her strongest competition are two previous winners (Davis and McDormand). Also, Carey Mulligan is one of those respected actors for whom it seems like she's gotten more nominations at this point than she actually has.

[Okri]

Thanks Magilla.

[Sabin]

Reza wrote
I found the whole premise quite prepostrous and just didn't buy into the scenario. Too many potholes in the plot. The film has an important message but says it in such a hysterical way that the whole film seems quite ludicrous. Carey Mulligan is not bad but clearly miscast.

I prefer both McDormand and Kirby in their movies. I'm rooting for Kirby to win the Oscar.

I certainly agree with you on the holes in the script which is why I'm very mixed on the film overall, possibly even leaning negative. However:
- What's preposterous about the premise of a woman wanting to get revenge on men who date rape women by picking them up and teaching them a lesson?
- What is hysterical about how the film conveys its message?
- If Carey Mulligan is so clearly miscast, who would you cast in that role instead?

[OscarGuy]

You do realize that the word hysterical, especially when applied to women, is based on actual clinical diagnoses suggesting women weren't in charge of their emotions. You are precisely the person this film is speaking against. Supposedly upstanding men who don't realize that they are beholden to toxic masculinity and are thus a part of the problem. Not the least bit surprised about that response.

Mulligan deserves the Oscar for it.

[Reza]

Michelle Pfeiffer might get late traction once her film opens and gets to the head of the list on sentimental reasons