Calling Jodie Foster Out Over Sin City Slam

For the past few days, there have been little snippet stories appearing all over the entertainment news wires about Jodie Foster criticizing Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller's joint work on Sin City, and I decided to look into this issue a little deeper because I sensed that something wasn't exactly right with how it was being presented.

I sought out the original USA Today article so that I wouldn't misquote her or take what she said out of context. And the context is so very important in this case.

Here is the quote in question: "[Sin City] was so painfully cartoonish I was offended. I don't know how you enjoy or laugh about a child abduction and molestation. What part of that sentence is funny? I can't get beyond that. I don't know if everyone understands the impact of a movie's message."

OK, I have to say it. We all know that Sin City was based on a graphic novel and the book was basically storyboards for the movie... which means that yes, it would be as Ms. Foster so eloquently put it "cartoonish". Utterly shocking, isn't it?

But here is my objection to that statement. She didn't finish watching the movie, and that segment in particular, and because of that it seems like we watched two different movies.

At no point did I laugh about child abduction. I mean, really, does Jodie Foster think the "That Yellow Bastard" chapter of the movie was supposed to be a comedy? I don't know how she got that idea. In fact, within a few minutes of being introduced to the characters involved in that storyline, the hero castrates a child rapist/murderer with his bare hands! Does that sound like the kind of story that is in anyway supporting or condoning the action of child molesters or abductors? To me, it certainly doesn't. That segment of the movie/story was about the bravery of an honest cop in a corrupt system who devoted his life and gave up everything to protect a single child from harm. Is that not noble? Is that not a good message, a positive message?

I certainly think so. To me, that segment is the complete antithesis of what Foster says it is.

Now the interesting point of all this is the context for that above statement. It was an interview about Jodie Foster's exploration of the dark side of humanity through her work and her fascination with crime; in the sidebar of which, there was a list of the selected movies from her filmography related to the subject. The list included her playing a child prostitute (Taxi Driver), a rape victim (The Accused), and an FBI agent hunting down a brutal serial killer with the help of another serial killer (Silence of the Lambs)... while also discussing her new movie, The Brave One, in which she plays a vigilante killer. And about that movie she states that "It's a sophisticated film, and I know that not everyone who is going to see it is going to be sophisticated."

So let me get this straight. When you make a movie like that, Jodie, it is OK because it is an artistic decision on your part, but somehow when another artist does that, it is not OK. Right.

I'm not saying that she has to like Sin City... but come on, at least be consistent. If I said that I didn't like or finish Taxi Driver, and I don't see how anyone else could enjoy it because it glorifies child prostitution, we'll, I wouldn't be too sophisticated, now would I? And would I not be missing "the message" of the movie if I took that premise at face value, because that seems to be exactly what she has done with Sin City.

Tags: jodie foster, taxi driver, sin city, silence of the lambs, criticism, the brave one, robert rodriguez, frank miller, the accused, double standard