For any men seeking to understand their potential impact on women…

I’d read about Kitty Green’s movie, Royal Hotel, but hadn’t got round to watching it until this week. We saw it over two nights, finishing last night.

It’s about two female American backpackers, who run out of cash in Australia and have to take the only jobs available, as bartenders at a remote mining community. If this set-up is seen as fanciful, it’s actually adapted from a documentary about two Finnish backpackers who had the same thing happen to them IRL, plus the director / co-writer’s own experiences.

Without getting into spoilers, the entire movie is about how women act around men and men act around women. Obviously as it’s a remote mining community, the guys are a bit rough at the edges (though not tropey IMO). Green goes out of her way to not make any of the men 2D villains. Even the most obvious “bad guy” has redeeming features and may just be misunderstood. Not understanding intention is a big theme.

Neither of the women are sure how to respond to the situation. Are some comments jokes, or are they meant to demean? Are the women in any danger, or are the guys just drunk and lonely? Is the banter and crude conversation just guys letting off steam, or something more sinister? This is compounded by cultural aspects, is this normal in Australia, when not so much in American? As if on cue for Lit, the use of the word “cunt” is one such area of potential misunderstanding.

One of the women reacts to the circumstances by shutting people out. Does that only encourage them to go at her harder, does this approach make things worse? The other embraces things and goes with the flow. Is that just asking for more of the same treatment? The movie doesn’t take sides. While the women’s growing unease is real, it’s never clear whether it is wholly warranted.

The movie is laced with a sense of dread, that the two FMCs are doomed and on a path to some awful ending. It’s almost Hitchcockian. But is that real, or their misunderstanding of how things are in this place and culture?

Taking to one side the foreign (speaking as an American) setting and the exaggerated (somewhat) behavior of the men, it resonated with me. We spend a lot of time trying to be safe. But it’s never clear if safety is best achieved by being a fun girl, or a cool bitch. Which is less likely to provoke a negative reaction? Which is less likely to lead to people misunderstanding what we want and don’t want?

In some social circumstances, it can feel like the hamster is on steroids, calibrating and recalibrating in real time.

I’m not in the least saying men are bad, or even that a significant minority are. But, you have to be careful, because a small minority are not good guys, and it’s not like they have a stamp on their forehead identifying them. Any guy might be a threat, which leads some women to often treating all new men (and some familiar ones) with some caution.

I’m not trying to demonize anyone. But if – in your writing and personal life – you want to better understand the female condition and maybe why some women (me included) react how we do here and IRL, then watch this movie.

Oh, and Julia Garner is amazing in it.

Emily

Note for Americans: I think it was free on Hulu, but I may have misremembered
I had the movie on my "to watch" list and just watched it yesterday. As a movie, it's a great little mood piece, with a solid performance by Julie Garner (I'm a fan of hers since Ozark).

Then, I read through the thread which of course went skittering off in a dozen directions. Here are my thoughts.

1. Women view and experience the world from a different perspective than men. If you give them the opportunity, they'll explain it to you. While they're doing it - don't try to fix it, don't try to right the wrong, don't try to explain what they've experienced or are experiencing - just listen, learn, and act accordingly. Ask them if there is anything you can do to support them, then take the actions necessary to support them. Do this because it's the right thing to do, not with an expectation of reward or appreciation. Take whatever steps you can to make it a better world for them. If you're in a position to teach and mentor other men, do it.

2. The movie itself is an exercise in general dread - primarily along three lines.

a. "Fear of the Strange/Different". Compare the opening scene - the two female main characters engaging in certain behavior in an urban rooftop bar and then contrast thsat behavior with their experience in the remote town/pub. In the environment they're comfortable in (the urban setting), their behavior has a certain tone. In the strange environment (the rural/remote setting) there is another tone.

b. "Fear of Rural Culture". This is a common trope in horror movies, where the emphasis on physical location serves to amplify the characters fears. As someone who was raised in a very rural setting, this always amuses me, because it's an assumption of difference that is unwarranted. I actually see and hear of it when speaking to my cohort here that were raised in a suburban/urban environment.

c. "Fear of Rural Males" - it's an interesting exploration of the trope, though, personally, I found it rather stereotypical of horror movies and certainly not reflective of rural males in my experience. (Which would be different than the experience of a stranger in the same setting.)

Then, I ran into what I considered to be am interesting part of this exploration of dread. Consider Julie Garner (Hannah's) reactions to the environment. I'd call it pretty problematic if you watch the movie and pay attention to her actions/reactions. Without giving any spoilers, simply observe how she takes actions which escalate and exacerbate problematic situations. As an ex-cop, there are multiple felonies committed in the movie - by Hannah (Julie Garner). I'll forward for your consideration this - she is actually the villain of the piece. Of all the male characters, only one commits a felony and that is directed at another of the male characters.

All in all, a good movie, and I'd recommend it. It's very nuanced and deftly done by all involved. Julie Garner's performance is amazing. She is quite the actor. Hugo Weaving is also great, though he is barely recognizable.
 
a. "Fear of the Strange/Different". Compare the opening scene - the two female main characters engaging in certain behavior in an urban rooftop bar and then contrast thsat behavior with their experience in the remote town/pub. In the environment they're comfortable in (the urban setting), their behavior has a certain tone. In the strange environment (the rural/remote setting) there is another tone.

b. "Fear of Rural Culture". This is a common trope in horror movies, where the emphasis on physical location serves to amplify the characters fears. As someone who was raised in a very rural setting, this always amuses me, because it's an assumption of difference that is unwarranted. I actually see and hear of it when speaking to my cohort here that were raised in a suburban/urban environment.

c. "Fear of Rural Males" - it's an interesting exploration of the trope, though, personally, I found it rather stereotypical of horror movies and certainly not reflective of rural males in my experience. (Which would be different than the experience of a stranger in the same setting.)
These are kind of the same thing for urbanites and suburbanites. Are we going to mention Deliverance here? It has only slightly less violent sodomy than your average LW story.
 
These are kind of the same thing for urbanites and suburbanites. Are we going to mention Deliverance here? It has only slightly less violent sodomy than your average LW story.
There are many examples of the "environmental fear" trope, the two most common in horror suspense are "rural fear" (using the setting of physical isolation to set the tone") and it's counterpart "urban fear", with an emphasis on the fear of the urban environment, with it's particular form of, again, isolation. Both of these fears rely on an exagerated environment to heighten the sense of dread and, in both cases, they ring hollow to people who actually have experience in both environments.

For the record, The Royal Hotel is more of a "dread" movie than a "dread AND violence" movie like Deliverance. There is no violent sodomy in The Royal Hotel. In fact, there are no sex scenes amd no nudity, beyond kissing and some 1st base level touching, in The Royal Hotel. It's more about "what could happen" than "what actually happened". If you want a far more graphic movie set in a similar environment, I'd recommed the much more brutal "Wolf Creek", also set in Australia.

The Royal Hotel doesn't blaze any new ground - it's a well-done exploration of the tropes of "rural fear".
 
I’d read about Kitty Green’s movie, Royal Hotel, but hadn’t got round to watching it until this week. We saw it over two nights, finishing last night.

It’s about two female American backpackers, who run out of cash in Australia and have to take the only jobs available, as bartenders at a remote mining community. If this set-up is seen as fanciful, it’s actually adapted from a documentary about two Finnish backpackers who had the same thing happen to them IRL, plus the director / co-writer’s own experiences.

Without getting into spoilers, the entire movie is about how women act around men and men act around women. Obviously as it’s a remote mining community, the guys are a bit rough at the edges (though not tropey IMO). Green goes out of her way to not make any of the men 2D villains. Even the most obvious “bad guy” has redeeming features and may just be misunderstood. Not understanding intention is a big theme.

Neither of the women are sure how to respond to the situation. Are some comments jokes, or are they meant to demean? Are the women in any danger, or are the guys just drunk and lonely? Is the banter and crude conversation just guys letting off steam, or something more sinister? This is compounded by cultural aspects, is this normal in Australia, when not so much in American? As if on cue for Lit, the use of the word “cunt” is one such area of potential misunderstanding.

One of the women reacts to the circumstances by shutting people out. Does that only encourage them to go at her harder, does this approach make things worse? The other embraces things and goes with the flow. Is that just asking for more of the same treatment? The movie doesn’t take sides. While the women’s growing unease is real, it’s never clear whether it is wholly warranted.

The movie is laced with a sense of dread, that the two FMCs are doomed and on a path to some awful ending. It’s almost Hitchcockian. But is that real, or their misunderstanding of how things are in this place and culture?

Taking to one side the foreign (speaking as an American) setting and the exaggerated (somewhat) behavior of the men, it resonated with me. We spend a lot of time trying to be safe. But it’s never clear if safety is best achieved by being a fun girl, or a cool bitch. Which is less likely to provoke a negative reaction? Which is less likely to lead to people misunderstanding what we want and don’t want?

In some social circumstances, it can feel like the hamster is on steroids, calibrating and recalibrating in real time.

I’m not in the least saying men are bad, or even that a significant minority are. But, you have to be careful, because a small minority are not good guys, and it’s not like they have a stamp on their forehead identifying them. Any guy might be a threat, which leads some women to often treating all new men (and some familiar ones) with some caution.

I’m not trying to demonize anyone. But if – in your writing and personal life – you want to better understand the female condition and maybe why some women (me included) react how we do here and IRL, then watch this movie.

Oh, and Julia Garner is amazing in it.

Emily

Note for Americans: I think it was free on Hulu, but I may have misremembered
I watched this movie and it kinda didnt end the way i expected it to. But I agree, woman are treated with such disrespect. A woman should be cherished, loved, treated equally, sexually satisfied, taken care of, kept warm, safe and respected. And whatever else she craves or desires.
 
Finally got round to seeing this this afternoon.

It was one of those films that I enjoyed more thinking about afterwards than I did actually watching it. It was good in the sense that, with my writer hat on, I couldn't think of much I'd have done differently. I went in with only this thread for knowledge about it and, in someways, it spoilt it a bit as the main theme/issues had been very thoroughly discussed and I was left watching with only with 'when is the bad thing going to happen and how bad is it going to be' on my mind. This thread had also mentioned a lot about how ambivalent it was about some of the characters/events and, being hyper alerted for it, I sometimes felt myself thinking 'there they go being ambivalent again' - still a lot of that was effective.
 
I’d read about Kitty Green’s movie, Royal Hotel, but hadn’t got round to watching it until this week.
Without getting into spoilers, the entire movie is about how women act around men and men act around women.

A while back, I read your initial comment (and most of the comments) with interest, but without a need to reply. For whatever reason, this thread stuck with me. Today, it occurred to me why. Ultimately, it feels to me as if you felt seen. Your values, experiences, and interpretations of the world were well reflected in this movie. How cool is that?

I don't believe it's about subjective phrases like right or wrong as much as it boils down to the sensation of "This feels accurate." And, "This feels true." And even, "This adds to my understanding of the universe in a useful way."

Fuck, I hope I create something that feels this way to someone.
 
Back
Top