Trailer for Machete, Robert Rodriguez' Mexploitation love-note to Arizona

Discuss

100 Responses to “Trailer for Machete, Robert Rodriguez' Mexploitation love-note to Arizona”

  1. BDiamond says:

    Sorry to be a me-tooer, but I just gotta say…

    This.

    Fucking.

    RAWKS!

  2. DeWynken says:

    Anyone who doesn’t like ironic titties needs the pickle removed from butt, stat.

  3. greytone says:

    @Felix: I think it’s a matter of context. Did irony give Black Dynamite a get-out-of-racism-free card? No. It didn’t need to, because the film itself wasn’t racist.

    @fergus1948: I can’t help but think you’re taking things way too seriously and therefor missing the point. This is about silly over-the-top politically incorrect action/humor for fun-loving adults. It was not produced as a response to Arizona, that was just a joke. There were lots of them in that trailer.

  4. Kevin Carson says:

    Maricopa County would be the ideal setting for another Billy Jack sequel.

  5. HD says:

    Wow! That Flash just kicked both CPUs up to 100% and the fans up to 6200 RPM, it was so awesome!

    Maybe Steve has a point.

  6. jaytkay says:

    I’m not gonna look but I bet Michelle Malkin already featured this on her site.

  7. Yana says:

    Looks like the spliced many of the scenes from the original trailer with new raw footage of Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, and the girl from Lost with a few graphics. It didn’t mesh very well. I like the original trailer better.

  8. jwb says:

    lol @ “Introducing Don Johnson”

  9. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Good to see Danny Trejo getting his due. He’s been in almost 200 films and is still That Guy to most people.

  10. Trotsky says:

    A lot of women really, really like showing their titties. I guess their opinion doesn’t matter though.

  11. 13enster says:

    That trailer is so awesome I had to watch it 3 times!

  12. Anonymous says:

    I worked on “Machete” as an extra and it is going to be AWESOME. And yes, there’s more than one mini-gun ; )

  13. David Carroll says:

    Can’t wait. I really liked Grindhouse, and this was one of the better faux trailers that were part of the package. Too bad James Nguyen (Birdemic) wasn’t directing though. ;)

  14. Trotsky says:

    Also, let’s say for the sake of argument that this picture is made exclusively for men with no consideration whatsoever for the interests of women. So? Where is it written that every auteur must appeal to all people? If Rodriguez wanted to make a movie that appealed exclusively to left-handed, male spot welders aged 24-27 who live in the Southeast and prefer chicken to beef, who cares?

    In other words, if you find yourself regarding this film as crude, offensive, or just plain dull, maybe it wasn’t written for you. If you wish to regard those who find it amusing as a lower order or less enlightened for their interest, that is your right. It is even your right to tell us about it, here or elsewhere. But you can’t expect an auteur to create content tailor-made to your tastes.

    Or rather you can expect it… it just won’t happen.

  15. Brainspore says:

    Holy shit, is this a joke or are they actually making a real feature film out of one of the fake trailers from “Grindhouse”? Is Eli Roth’s “Thanksgiving” next?

  16. Felix Mitchell says:

    This looks awesome, but I’m getting a bit tired of ‘ironic titties’. Making a pastiche of old films does not give you a ‘get out of sexism free card’.

    • The Chemist says:

      I agree to an extent. He’s trying to affect a style and aesthetic that calls for gratuitous lameness, racial stereotypes, and misogyny that was all about getting butts in seats. It would be hard to avoid the ironic cleavage and stay true to the genre. I’d say he could tone it down, but it is toned down from the exploitation flicks parodied. (At least if the earlier Grindhouse movie with Tarantino is any indication of what he’s going to do here.)

      Does this make it okay? Probably not, if only because he and the rest of Hollywood don’t really bother to set a standard high enough that deliberately crawling under it is really distinguishable from well- crawling under it.

    • DoctressJulia says:

      THIS. Thank you, agreed.

    • nutbastard says:

      yeah i’m sure the owners of said titties are really feeling oppressed right now.

      gratuitous exhibition of female anatomy != sexism.

      you might as well call Eddie Murphy a racist for perpetuating black stereotypes. But you wouldn’t, because he’s black – and yet, the one thing that gives him a pass on such things is exactly the one thing that isn’t supposed to matter – his race.

    • hassan-i-sabbah says:

      Take of your Andrea Dworkin memorial panties and chill fella, ’tis only a movie….

      • The Chemist says:

        Take off your Andrea Dworking memorial panties…

        Not helping your own point there buddy.

        • The Chemist says:

          Well, would ya’ look at that! I gave you a free “G”. Don’t you go spending it all in one place now, y’hear?

        • Trotsky says:

          >> Not helping your own point there buddy.

          Actually, the Dworkin reference totally worked for me.

      • Felix Mitchell says:

        @ hassan-i-sabbah “Take of your Andrea Dworkin memorial panties and chill fella, ’tis only a movie…”

        I’m not really sure how to respond to this without being sarcastic, so I’ll just copy what I said before and put it in bold.

        “Making a pastiche of old films does not give you a ‘get out of sexism free card’.”

        • Brainspore says:

          You know what, back in my dating days I was forced to sit through enough sappy romantic comedies that I feel I earned the privilege to see a boobie-filled pile of trash once in a while if I want to.

          • The Chemist says:

            Yes, because your prototypical sappy romantic comedy can’t also be sexist, since teh wimminz loves it.

          • Brainspore says:

            I find it very telling that some people seem to find exposed boobies more offensive than people getting hacked apart with machetes or riddled with machine gun bullets.

          • Daedalus says:

            “I find it very telling that some people seem to find exposed boobies more offensive than people getting hacked apart with machetes or riddled with machine gun bullets.”

            Hard to exploit a corpse!

            …well, okay, technically, it’s actually very easy to exploit a corpse, but it can’t really feel bad about it. On the other hand, boobies give the self-righteous cause to white knight our precious precious ladies who should never ever be fully exposed to public lest someone forget that breasts are made of mysterious feminine voodoo and unicorn dreams, and thus a sacred thing, unfit for general public consumption amongst consenting adults lest the lady to whom they belong be unknowingly defiled by our cultural witchcraft.

            But I suppose that you didn’t know that a movie that features a unbridled stereotypical male id to rival the power-fantasies of the Guvernator himself has, despite everything, a requirement, as a media invention, to not feature those magic lady parts.

            Silly Brainspore.

          • Felix Mitchell says:

            @Daedalus “On the other hand, boobies give the self-righteous cause to white knight our precious precious ladies who should never ever be fully exposed to public”

            I like lady parts. I didn’t know ‘white knight’ could be a verb, but anyway it’s important to see the difference between sex and sexism. Girls can, and hopefully want to, be sexy without being objectified.

            The comparison with Black Dynamite is apt, but I think that film doesn’t get away with black stereotypes merely by not being racist. It uses black stereotypes as an empowering thing. Death proof was half exploitive (first half) and half empowering (second half) so Tarantino definitely can do this sort of thing well. Dunno if he wrote any of Machete.

            @ Brainspore
            I’m sure the generations of women who’ve suffered under male oppression have a lot of sympthy that you had to sit through a couple of chick films.

          • Brainspore says:

            I’m sure the generations of women who’ve suffered under male oppression have a lot of sympthy that you had to sit through a couple of chick films.

            And I’m sure those same women appreciate that you equate a celluloid image of exposed breasts with millennia of systemic rape and political disenfranchisement.

          • Felix Mitchell says:

            Sexist images of women in film are caused by, and reinforce, a sexist society. That’s not saying they’re equal.

          • Brainspore says:

            If a single sexist image in film is enough to help keep women everywhere oppressed then why aren’t you equally concerned about violent images?

            I’d much prefer my daughter grow up to be a stripper than an assassin.

          • Felix Mitchell says:

            You keep overstating what I’ve said. Of course one image does not oppress every woman. What does that even mean? You can’t be oppressed by an image. You can, however, be oppressed by people who think it’s OK because they constantly see examples of it in their culture.

            As to the violence – I equate that to the boobies we talked about earlier. There’s nothing wrong with it generally, but certain contexts make it dispicable.

            Also, assassins are awesome. If my daughter was an assassin that’d be ace. But good strippers only allow people to watch them, so maybe a better comparison would be… an action film star! An assassin is more like the violence version of a high class call girl.

          • Brainspore says:

            As to the violence – I equate that to the boobies we talked about earlier.

            Clearly not, or you would have spent the last few posts bitching about how this movie glorifies violence rather than how it objectifies women.

            Also, assassins are awesome. If my daughter was an assassin that’d be ace.

            Huh.

            An assassin is more like the violence version of a high class call girl.

            Point taken. I’d still prefer that my daughter screw people for money than kill them, since I find prostitution less distasteful than murder.

          • DoctressJulia says:

            THANKS AGAIN, Felix. Love, A woman. :)

          • Daedalus says:

            @ Felix Mitchell:
            “Girls can, and hopefully want to, be sexy without being objectified.”

            There’s a lot to unpack in that statement, but I suppose the salient point for the movie is that it’s wrong to assume that “show breasts in a corny action flick” = “objectified.” Objectification is much more than just exposure for adolescent titillation. “Ironic Titties” don’t turn people into things in and of themselves. And they’re not any more objectifying in this context than anything else in the film (like the absurd masculinity of the protagonist).

            @ The Chemist
            “Glad to know you think a woman’s body parts are ‘fit for general public consumption amongst consenting adults.’”

            I reject the idea that any body part is somehow inherently a sacred or profane thing that must be treated as if it is some magical sorcery. It’s a pair of breasts. There’s more of those in the world than there are Giant Pandas. They’re not that big of a deal. If a woman wants to show them for a paycheck and the entertainment of the masses for a few seconds, to tickle the visceral lizard brain of millions, I’m totally OK with that. Just like I’m okay with violence in that context.

          • The Chemist says:

            I reject the idea that any body part is somehow inherently a sacred or profane thing that must be treated as if it is some magical sorcery. It’s a pair of breasts. There’s more of those in the world than there are Giant Pandas. They’re not that big of a deal. If a woman wants to show them for a paycheck and the entertainment of the masses for a few seconds, to tickle the visceral lizard brain of millions, I’m totally OK with that. Just like I’m okay with violence in that context.

            Glad to know you’re okay with it. That’s what’s really been weighing on my mind from the start really. You conveniently ignore the fact that body parts and people are largely inseparable- unless you’re a psychopath. But hey, there’s nothing weird or wrong at all of thinking of breasts as being fungible commodities that can be compared to the number of pandas in the wild, or barrels of oil left undrilled. It’s long been the case that men can afford to think of women as objects and it’s apparent to me you’re more than happy to continue the tradition, but still think there’s something novel or interesting about your position. Like I, or no doubt Felix, have never heard any of this bullshit from other people before.

            @Nutbastard

            Shorter nutbastard: “Hey! Look over there!” Shorter nutbastard again, “No! Wait! You can look over here too!”

            *Yawn* Next!

            @Brainspore

            If a single sexist image in film is enough to help keep women everywhere oppressed then why aren’t you equally concerned about violent images?

            You too, with the deflection? No, sorry, I’m not looking over there right now, I’m looking over here. You want to derail, or have a completely different discussion, try it with someone more gullible.

            I’d much prefer my daughter grow up to be a stripper than an assassin.

            I know dichotomies are fun, but I assure you that feminism has decided, long long ago, that women can be things other than scum of the earth, or sexual servants. Pass that message on to your daughter for me if you don’t plan on telling her that of your own volition. Also, don’t drag your kids into this people. No, it doesn’t add to your credibility, and it’s also kind of shitty.

            @Brainspore

            My point was this: live and let live. I don’t tell other people what kinds of films to watch and I’d appreciate it if they return the favor.

            Funny how that’s not what it sounded like. You said you earned a privilege because you did something. That doesn’t sound like a message of live and let live. It sounds like you think you’re owed something, and I’m dying to know what’s at the root of your transactional attitude.

          • Brainspore says:

            I know dichotomies are fun, but I assure you that feminism has decided, long long ago, that women can be things other than scum of the earth, or sexual servants.

            Dude, you’re the one making a false dichotomy here: “EITHER you hate the fact that films like this one show boobies OR you oppose women’s rights.” The idea that a person could support full equality and still enjoy the occasional trashy movie doesn’t even compute with you.

            What I made was a comparison to underline the fact that people are getting very worked up about the sexism in this movie but seem completely unfazed by its violence. I hope that my children have wonderful, fulfilling careers but if they ever drift into less reputable paths I would prefer sex to murder. (And that goes for my son as well as my daughter.)

            Label me a sexist monster if it suits you, the people I care about know better. Good day.

          • The Chemist says:

            (Quick aside to Mudshark: When, pray tell, is an assertion of “undue” political correctness ever anything but an accusation?)

            Tut, tut. Such strawmen. I never said that. (Although I do find the word “boobies” bolded in strident emphasis hi-larious.) Sexism is a funny thing- it describes acts, not an attitude. You can do something sexist, and still be a real-life feminist (so long as you don’t make a habit of it.) I do it sometimes. Hard not to when male privilege makes it so that I can say certain things and do certain things without repercussion or reminder. Not little things either. Do you know how easy it still is to victimize women in this country and get away with it?

            You don’t become a sexist until you’ve ingrained and rationalized certain behaviors into your moral fiber. Some of the people in this thread clearly have. Do you think I’ve never made a sexist or problematic remark or done something sexist?

            No. But, when I slip, I catch myself and try not to do it again. I actually like RR’s stuff sometimes because he does something very well that few directors have mastered: Dialogue (Also the reason I fell in love with Inglourious Basterds, or however it’s misspelled.) Death Proof had very convincing dialogue, which is part of what made it so much fun.

            Yes, you do have to hate the fact that films like this are so gratuitous in the way they objectify women- or you disagree with the notion women are human beings. (Fun Fact: You can do this and still watch these movies for the most part.) Forget about the “equal rights” canard. Equal rights has not and will not obliterate misogyny.

            In this case, the problem isn’t that women show cleavage or breasts. Anyone with a half-decent awareness of women’s issues will tell you women often get flak for simply having bigger breasts and are criticized for dressing like any other woman would. The problem is we’re talking about portrayal and subtext- something a director knows something about. We’re talking about male-gaze, again, something a director knows something about.

            You seem to think that having a discussion where something about this movie is criticized is the worst thing in the world. If I criticized the cinematography, or the nature of the aesthetic and how it was shot, would you be so vehemently against my criticisms? No, even if you disagreed on specific point. Because then I’m not criticizing your concept of a just society by extension. When I criticize an element of the film that does tie into your social expectations and those unearned privileges our culture has conferred upon you, you’re threatened. I understand that, it makes sense. You just need to honest with yourself and understand that the disgust you feel reading my comments has a lot to do with the fact that I’m challenging what you perceive to be part of the benefits package society owes you.

            My refusal to focus on violence is grounded in my (amazing) ability to stay on fucking topic. If you want to take issue with what I’m arguing, once again, the best way to do that is to stick to the topic at hand. I’m not interested in discussing violence in movies right now thankyouverymuch. Why are you so offended that I don’t want to discuss your issues, when you’re clearly responding to mine at the moment?

            A lot of you need to understand one key concept, defined in detail here:

            http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/

          • The Chemist says:

            Who said I’m offended by “exposed boobies?” Quite frankly, I’m not so sure that you’re less offended by secondary and primary sexual characteristics than I am. I’d be more than happy to sit through a movie with excessive male frontal nudity if the plot worked. But, strangely, there aren’t many of those.

            I’m offended instead that you seem to think your engaging in bullshit heterosexist relationship dynamics some time in the past bizarrely entitles you to concessions from women everywhere.

            “Oh! Please excuse my sexism. I acted like a human being at some point in my life and now I get a pass. If anything, women should be swooning at me for not being an even bigger douchebag.”

            @Mudshark

            It isn´t about advocating gender equality or political correctness of any kind.

            Neither is mainstream Hollywood. Nor are most works. I though that was the problem. I your throwaway phrase “political correctness” because not only is it a meaningless term used thoughtlessly to accuse other people of thoughtlessness, but because you seem to think gender equality falls into that category.

            @Daedalus

            Glad to know you think a woman’s body parts are “fit for general public consumption amongst consenting adults.”

            When you make points like that, who needs a rebuttal?

          • The Chemist says:

            I ignored your throwaway phrase “political correctness”… and so and so forth.

            I’ve been the king of typos lately.

          • Brainspore says:

            I’m offended instead that you seem to think your engaging in bullshit heterosexist relationship dynamics some time in the past bizarrely entitles you to concessions from women everywhere.

            What do you mean “concessions from women everywhere?” I’m not even planning to drag my wife to the movie if she doesn’t want to see it, let alone half the world’s population.

          • The Chemist says:

            What do you mean “concessions from women everywhere?” I’m not even planning to drag my wife to the movie if she doesn’t want to see it, let alone half the world’s population.

            Then what does this mean?:

            You know what, back in my dating days I was forced to sit through enough sappy romantic comedies that I feel I earned the privilege to see a boobie-filled pile of trash once in a while if I want to.

            It sounds to me like what you want is some kind of reciprocal absolution. If not, then it’s really only up to you to make it clear what you meant. (Pro-tip: When you start digging yourself into a hole, the solution usually isn’t to try and dig yourself out.)

          • Brainspore says:

            My point was this: live and let live. I don’t tell other people what kinds of films to watch and I’d appreciate it if they return the favor.

          • The Mudshark says:

            I your throwaway phrase “political correctness” because not only is it a meaningless term used thoughtlessly to accuse other people of thoughtlessness, but because you seem to think gender equality falls into that category.

            Your reply consists solely of accusations, insinuations and putting words into my mouth. I’m not at my most eloquent when I use English but I don’t believe my post was as inscrutable as you make it out to be.

        • The Mudshark says:

          Is the concept of exploitation cinema really that hard to understand? I´ll give you a nudge in the right direction: It isn´t about advocating gender equality or political correctness of any kind.

          That poster is fantastic, by the way.

          • Felix Mitchell says:

            @ The Mudshark “Is the concept of exploitation cinema really that hard to understand? I´ll give you a nudge in the right direction: It isn´t about advocating gender equality or political correctness of any kind.”

            Yeah I know. I’m suggesting Rodriguez shouldn’t just blindly copy the sexism of exploitation cinema just because he likes the style. It’s possible to have the style and sex appeal without the sexism, e.g. Jackie Brown or the girl on the bonnet in Death Proof.

            Maybe for their next film Rodrigeuz and Tarantino can remake The Birth of a Nation.

          • The Mudshark says:

            Yeah I know. I’m suggesting Rodriguez shouldn’t just blindly copy the sexism of exploitation cinema just because he likes the style. It’s possible to have the style and sex appeal without the sexism, e.g. Jackie Brown or the girl on the bonnet in Death Proof.

            It’s not just the style that makes an exploitation movie. Also, exploitation works on all genders, and I won’t complain either way. Why do you think women need your special protection?

    • sdmikev says:

      what are you talking about?

    • Anonymous says:

      Maybe I’m being naive here, but I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting the sexism thing from. I don’t see any women being treated disrespectfully or abused, in fact they look a lot like the ‘empowered’ type. The target demographic is (young) men. Men like to look at women. Making birdwatching documentaries for birdwatchers is not exploitative of the birds.

      I don’t know if you noticed but for much of the trailer Danny Trejo isn’t really wearing much more than the girls.

      I guess the “he gets the girls” line might be contentious if you’re not into open sexuality, but I think that’s a seperate issue from sexism.

  17. nonplus says:

    So totally sweet, even if the Austin, TX skyline isn’t quite Arizona.

    I can’t wait to see it at the movies!

  18. EscapingTheTrunk says:

    My first thought upon reading this thread was:

    “So, women like Xeni and myself are actually mindless slaves to the patriarchy, programmed with male gaze intact, helpless to make our own media decisions and doomed to remain gender traitors because we liked this trailer? I just want to be clear, so that I know exactly how much shame I should dose myself with, today. I find that I don’t get enough from society at large; I really need some extra flagellation for not being good at being a woman.”

    But then I thought:

    “I know that it’s unfair that Michelle Rodriguez is overtly sexualized in this trailer, while the men aren’t. I know the role this plays in ticket sales and Rodriguez’ career and the cycle of getting ahead in media. I know that cycle is unfair and demeaning. But telling me that I as a woman do not accept other women as human beings simply because I hit the play button? That’s extreme, and it’s actually a bit hurtful, because it undermines my judgment and my ability to make my own media decisions. Moreover, it shoves me into a gender box that I just don’t fit in. By telling me that I’m not supposed to like something because it’s designed for the male gaze, you’re also telling me that I am not good at performing my own gender, and that I’m somehow betraying my fellow women by not towing the line. And that really stings. I don’t want to betray my fellow women. But I would also hesitate to tell them that the freedom to enjoy what they like, the freedom to see the films and read the books and write the stories that they really want to, the freedom so many women worked so hard for, isn’t meant to be exercised when it offends others of their gender.”

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      cf. Burqa ban. The best way to empower women is to tell them how they should look.

      Also, what part of the sploit genre are people unclear on?

    • The Chemist says:

      NO! Quite the opposite, I think you’re totally getting the point!

      “I know that it’s unfair that Michelle Rodriguez is overtly sexualized in this trailer, while the men aren’t. I know the role this plays in ticket sales and Rodriguez’ career and the cycle of getting ahead in media. I know that cycle is unfair and demeaning.”

      That’s it! That’s all people like Brainspore et al need to do: acknowledge sexism exists, and that it exists in this particular case. I’m saying anything BUT hitting the play button makes you a “traitor.” Instead we got a lot of nonsensical defensiveness about how they deserve to see breasts and not feel bad about it ever.

      By no means am I saying that people who see this movie or enjoyed the trailer are immediately misogynistic assholes. I’m saying that there’s misogyny in the trailer and the movie- that’s my remarkable, horrific, transgressive, totally inappropriate statement. After that, the other commenter decided to make sexist assertions that I felt forced to answer.

      But I think both Felix and I were trying to do the same thing, “Hey, look! Sexism.” Which should have been as trivial as saying, “Hey look! They used a wide angle lens.”

      • loonquawl says:

        I am not getting it. Your comments made me re-watch the movie. No women till 0:55, no shots of women where the breasts were the actual focus, more chest-shots of men, than of women. One 3 second scene of a woman wearing only pants&bras shooting at something. Narrator talking about ‘he gets the women’, while normally dressed woman sits on normally dressed Machete /jumps onto him (in both cases, no coercion). Most women-shots are of women’s face, actually, men are shown with focus away from face more often.

        Could you explain in more detail how this trailer contains sexist elements?
        Can any action movie in your eyes be totally non sexist? Could you cite an example or shortly lay out how women in that film would look like? – You likened ‘sexist’ to ‘using a wide angle lens’ – isn’t the word then, rather : ‘sexual’ or ‘sexualized’?
        Is the fact that women’s bodies are of far higher visual interest to men and women, than are men’s bodies a mitigating factor, or only a symptom of culturally ingrained (wrong) preferences?

        Many questions, i know, but i am genuinely puzzled and would appreciate your answers.

      • The Mudshark says:

        NO! Quite the opposite, I think you’re totally getting the point!

        Be content, EscapingTheTrunk. The Chemist, local authority on all things sexist, thinks you´re getting it.

        By no means am I saying that people who see this movie or enjoyed the trailer are immediately misogynistic assholes.

        No, you were just implying it, even more so for the director.

        But I think both Felix and I were trying to do the same thing, “Hey, look! Sexism.”

        I would believe that´s what Felix was trying to do, by making his points and telling his thoughts. What you are doing is just intentionally riling people up by infusing meaning into their arguments that isn´t there and labeling everyone who doesn´t adhere to your dogma as misogynist, thinking of women as less than human, objectifiying them and so on. You are obviously a smart guy (and eager to let everyone know that) but essentially a troll.

      • Brainspore says:

        Instead we got a lot of nonsensical defensiveness about how they deserve to see breasts and not feel bad about it ever.

        If a woman wants to show her breasts on film and I (or Xeni or EscapingTheTrunk) want to see those breasts I still don’t see why any of us should feel the least bit bad about it ever. Same goes for straight women or gay men who enjoy ogling a finely chiseled man-ass.

  19. alisong76 says:

    Danny Trejo is the MAN. I look forward to seeing this one. Of course, it won’t open in any theatres near me.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I’m a little disappointed. Nothing wrong with him making more films, but I’m still waiting for the day we’ll finally get a Robert Rodriguez cooking series on Food Network.

  21. Daedalus says:

    “You conveniently ignore the fact that body parts and people are largely inseparable”

    I never said anything one way or the other on the topic. I could, but it’s not really relevant, and you seem vastly more interested in being right than in having a productive conversation, anyway. So I think we’re done.

    • The Chemist says:

      You don’t have productive conversations with sexists. Either they come to the realization that women are human beings in the strictest sense of the term within about ten to fifteen seconds or they’re part of the problem.

  22. Antinous / Moderator says:

    Men talking about breasts. How utterly fascinating.

    • The Chemist says:

      Correction: “Boobies.” If we actually used the word “breasts” we might have to take the topic seriously.

  23. Anonymous says:

    I do have to say this looks awesome.

    However, I do REALLY want to see Werewolf Women of the SS with Udo Keir!

  24. vytautasmalesh says:

    Do want!

  25. arikol says:

    Booom, whooosh, clang!

    Looks fun, and that superstar cast! Just throw Bruce Campbell, Sigourney Weaver and Nathan Filion in there and the lineup of badasses is complete.

  26. Spencer Cross says:

    This looks too awesome. Though it would be much easier to follow their suggestion to “Spread this Everywhere!” if they had made it available in a format that was “spreadable.” Embedded Flash video players FTL.

  27. hbl says:

    This further cements my unreasonable guy crush on Robert Rodriquez. I too would like to see him do a food show off the back of his 10 minute cooking schools!

    I don’t mind if those ironic bewbies belong to Li-Lo because goodness knows she needs a break, bless her heart.

  28. Sekino says:

    That. Looked. Awesome!!!

    Wow, it’s about latinos… and yet no Antonio Banderas! :D Trejo FTW!!

  29. piminnowcheez says:

    Can’t. Wait.

    I mean, the machine gun motor cycle jump alone…

  30. Xeni Jardin says:

    I am a female, and I approve of this blog post.

    • Brainspore says:

      Sorry, you’re too oppressed to be allowed to make such decisions.

      • Xeni Jardin says:

        Whoah, wait. I am a female and I WROTE this blog post.

        I just blew my mind!

        • Daedalus says:

          “Whoah, wait. I am a female and I WROTE this blog post.”

          I think the question logically follows:

          Why don’t you think you are a human being, Xeni?

          (and if it’s because you’re actually a robot from the future, that’s AWESOME)

  31. Anonymous says:

    This is the same character he played in Spy Kids.

  32. ackpht says:

    Only ONE minigun on the motorcycle? Lame!

  33. nutbastard says:

    also, re: sexism – why no cries of foul over the prevalence of the stereotypical ultra-violent man? it’s perpetuating a society where men are pigeon holed as overly aggressive vigilantes with nothing of depth to say – no, we just shoot guns, we’re just objectified as walking turrets. i feel so oppressed as a man right now because someone created a fictional depiction of a man that doesn’t incorporate any notion of his individual worth. men are people too, you know, with fears and aspirations, individuals with thoughts and philosophies. we aren’t just a ripped torso with two gun holding arms.

    when you carry a feminist hammer, everything looks like a misogynist nail.

  34. sdmikev says:

    I can’t believe people are trying to have a deep, philosophical discussion about this. After watching a trailer that ends “they just fucked with the wrong Mexican.” Really?

  35. Trent Hawkins says:

    Machete fight with Steven Seagal? FUCK YEAH!

  36. Anonymous says:

    I’m a woman. I just watched Machete with three of my girl friends. We thought it was a riot… It was over the top, excessively violent, and women are mostly scantily clad and, at times, (very) nude. Yeah, yeah, it’s ironic, it’s from Hollywood, it’s a “pastiche of exploitation flicks”, but… it was so much fun. While The Chemist may be well versed on Women’s Lib studies, anti-feminism, and sexism, she or he is forgetting that film (no matter how purposely low-brow it may be) is an art medium. Maybe Rodriguez wasn’t exploiting females, but sexism itself. Machete is so bombastic; it seems its aim is to provoke thoughtful individuals, such as The Chemist, to generate controversial banter. Robert Rodriguez has always made films like this. If you don’t like his style, then don’t watch it. You are entitled to an opinion no matter how ignorant or intelligent you think you are. The Chemist isn’t going to stop pornography from being made… nor is he or she going to get through to the people who watch it six times a day. All The Chemist can do is just spin her or his wheels at a mass of internet users who don’t really want to listen. The Chemist – although well “spoken” – has no evident credentials or doctrines that lets the internet know that he or she is a professional at anything.

    My hat’s off to Robert Rodriguez who did a fantastic job of entertaining me and my friends, as well as designing a B movie that has sparked (a smidgeon) of thought provoking controversy.

    @The Chemist: you are wound extremely tight, and although I thank you for your defense, this is not a movie you should be concerned about. Look for more subtle examples of sexism in major commercial films, as my girlfriends and I have determined, are way nastier and mean spirited then any fantasy/exploitation flick. Your concerns are well-founded, but not here and not over this. Also, maybe loosen up, grab a bucket of popcorn, sit down with your partner or friends, and throw on Machete. Life’s short, babe. Have fun.

  37. Felix Mitchell says:

    @Daedalus;

    “And they’re not any more objectifying in this context than anything else in the film (like the absurd masculinity of the protagonist).”

    This is kind of the same as a point I made in that BB post about black avatars in gaming. I said I didn’t feel like the victim of racism when I (white) was made to play as a black character in a game, so why should black gamers feel bad when the situation is reversed?

    This is a good response I got:
    “Video games have a long and widely known history of being a medium by and for white boys. So when you and I encounter a video game, we default to assuming that it’s intended for us. Making the protagonist a different race, gender, etc. doesn’t bother us, because it would take a lot to make us feel alienated from a medium that’s so consistently targeted towards us. And in the case of GTA:SA, we’d be right: despite the fact that the protagonist is black, the game was designed by an overwhelmingly white team with a white audience in mind.

    On the other hand, people of color or a women often tend to assume by default that video games are /not/ intended for them, because of the same gaming history and culture that makes us so comfortable with them. So it’s not enough to just assume “if white people are comfortable playing black characters, black people will be comfortable playing white characters”. A game has to make a concerted effort to dispel that initial assumption, because the potential non-white non-male audience is already primed to feel alienated.”

    I think it’s easy to see that this kind of action film is aimed at men, and so the same logic applies. The film should make a ‘concerted effort to dispel that initial assumption’ of sexism.

    • Daedalus says:

      “I think it’s easy to see that this kind of action film is aimed at men, and so the same logic applies. The film should make a ‘concerted effort to dispel that initial assumption’ of sexism.”

      I thought the logic was flawed then, too, but moreso in this case. Clearly, this particular movie is directed at least some strong female icons, given the person who posted about it because she thought it looks awesome.

      It’s not so easy to see. Girls like guns and explosions and violence, too, and they don’t necessarily have a problem with breasts. Gender lines are not as hard-coded as all that.

  38. fergus1948 says:

    I don’t know what’s wrong with me!
    This just looks to me like pornography of the worst kind.
    Am I missing something, like it’s weapon-fetish dressed up as postmodern irony?
    I know most movies are aimed at 14 year old boys but does it somehow make it more acceptable if they’re Mexican boys?
    F*** Arizona but is this the best response we’ve got? Sheesh!

    • insatiableatheist says:

      If you watch the Tarantino ‘Grindhouse’ films you’ll see the irony.
      B-movies like this were a staple in the 70s, and the mock trailer captured the mood perfectly.
      Too many big names in the feature though. Looks like they’ll be aiming for the ‘blockbuster’ rather than straight to VHS, which is a pity if that’s the case.
      I love me some good B-movie action.

  39. Trotsky says:

    Also, the notion that “Michelle Rodriguez is sexualized” (passive, recipient of action) assumes Michelle Rodriguez had something done *TO* her as opposed to doing it herself. Why is it assumed that as a woman she was portrayed any way other than her absolute preference? Why is it assumed that she had little or no input into the creation of this character? Indeed, that it may be entirely of her own making? Is she, and the other females in this movie, so desperate that she must accept this humiliation in order to collect a paycheck? “I’ll take that crappy Rodriguez role because Lifetime and Oxygen won’t return my calls.”

    Also, how is she sexualized? She’s wearing a skimpy top in one scene. Is that sexualized? Trejo is wearing a tanktop that features his toned physique. It that sexualized too?

    How are the males in this any less cardboard and reduced to absurd stereotype? For christ sake, the protagonist is a machete wielding Mexican. The nun. The priest. The corrupt politician. All stereotypes. Or do we just take notice when tits are involved?

    I notice no one has mentioned the egregious and stereotypical treatment meted out to Mexicans as being offensive. That’s entertainment. But titties are serious.

    Finally, this is a parody of an exploitation film. A caricature of a caricature. The entire point is that all characters are painted with broad, stereotypical strokes for the purposes of ex-ploit-a-shun. How is this point lost on some?

    Iron Man 2 features sexy women in tight suits (also sexy men in tight suits). Is it easier for some to swallow that because they are more familiar with the superhero genre?

    Sometimes I am amazed at the disconnect BB readers bring to simple concepts of nuance, parody, satire, or tongue-in-cheek homage. This is disturbingly similar to the conversations surrounding Die Antwoord where a certain group obsesses over their narrow definition of authenticity or what is “real.”

  40. dross1260 says:

    El, it means… the worst SpyKids evars.

  41. lewis stoole says:

    it looks like the modern day johnny firecloud–
    filmed in panavision

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmMFqgXijv8&feature=related

  42. Spencer Cross says:

    I feel it necessary that to point out that, while you’re all welcome to debate the sexism depicted in the trailer, any debate about the sexism depicted in the film itself is a little premature considering that none of you has actually seen it. While it’s very likely that it will turn out to be exactly what we assume it will be, let’s have the courtesy to at least wait for evidence before vilifying Rodriguez.

  43. Motion select says:

    The trailer looks funny. Though I’m still on the fence about this because I don’t know if I could sit through 2 hrs of this. I think this makes a better short. Especially since I quickly got bored of Planet Terror.

  44. Avram / Moderator says:

    This is a perfect time for this movie. I almost think that maybe the studio’s marketing division arranged for the Arizona legislature to pass the law.

Leave a Reply