skirtcafe.org

I've just watched TBIAD and the plot was predictable and I wasn't that impressed. The dresses weren't ones that I would even contemplate wearing. Still I suppose from the traditional view it has been a step forward.

pleated wrote:Overall I thought it was positive, though I'm inclined to agree with the reviewer's observations about the part played by Walliams (as the slightly camp stand-in referee).

Walliams' second-substitute referee character, camp as a row of pink tents and totally ignorant about football, was beyond ridiculous, but some of the other characters were rather one-dimensional too. And I could see the twist at the end coming a mile off. But hey, it's a children's story, so what do you expect? Overall it was fun and the boy looked quite the thing in his dress. Enough to make any rational person think it would be OK for boys to wear dresses in real life, in my unbiassed opinion!

I found this article/discussion on the wider implications of this TV show:

http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/12/28/ ... n-of-boys/

Stu

Boys' school, miket?

My first skirt was a kilt which was made for my big brother and later passed down to me, though tbh I don't remember ever wearing it. My first skirt worn of my own choosing had probably been my big sister's. Some dressing-up game, but if that was first it certainly wasn't the only time! And then there was the time when, aged about 9, I dressed up as a girl for Hallowe'en, wearing my mother's tennis skirt. Not my idea, and as it happens I recall not being greatly enamoured of the idea at first. But by 31 October I was quite happy going out guising dressed like that. If my memory serves me correctly I sang "They call me Miss Buttercup" from G&S's HMS Pinafore, which complemented the outfit nicely. My mother's comment on my costume was that I'd have made a lovely girl, so it serves her right that she hardly ever sees me in trousers these days!

From Stu's link:

There are people who fear that giving everyone equal access to the masculine and feminine realms, will breed a generation of girls who are butch or laddish and boys who are effeminate or gay. And yet there is a great deal for both women and men to gain from experiencing aspects of life that were traditionally restricted to one gender or another.

This may be a bit out of context, but in the contradance world it is generally acknowledged that dancing the opposite gender's role will make you a better dancer, because you experience what 'the other half' have to put up with. Having said that, many women take the man's role because there aren't enough male dancers...

As for the film, I thought the moral was that you're still the same person capable of achieving the same things no matter what you wear.

Charlie

Charlie wrote:...This may be a bit out of context, but in the contradance world it is generally acknowledged that dancing the opposite gender's role will make you a better dancer, because you experience what 'the other half' have to put up with.

On the rare occasions when I have 'danced woman' in a ceilidh, I have been amazed at the range of abilities shown by supposedly experienced men dancers. A few are obviously very good dancers and can adapt their style to suit the build and weight of their partner, but an awful lot more, despite their years of experience, don't seem to have a clue what effect their clumsiness and macho behaviour has on their partner. The worst can be downright dangerous.

Since I have spent more time dancing in a skirt, I have found one or two of the women are more willing to confide in me what they think of some of the men dancers - and how they have had to learn to avoid injury when dancing with them.

Any chance of a viewing of this film in the U.S.?
Has anyone found it available for 'down-load' or Youtube?

Uncle Al

The movie Boy in a dress was a good movie. I downloaded off a movie / tv show site. I think it was www.icefilm.info . There are movies that you can't find in the U.S. The movie makes some very interesting points.

JohnA wrote:The movie Boy in a dress was a good movie. I downloaded off a movie / tv show site. I think it was http://www.icefilm.info . There are movies that you can't find in the U.S. The movie makes some very interesting points.

TAKE CARE! The linked site attempts to install malware on your computer!

Stevie D wrote:

JohnA wrote:The movie Boy in a dress was a good movie. I downloaded off a movie / tv show site. I think it was http://www.icefilm.info . There are movies that you can't find in the U.S. The movie makes some very interesting points.

TAKE CARE! The linked site attempts to install malware on your computer!

OK - Anyone have any other website suggestions?

Uncle Al

It is on the BBC iPlayer. That means it is not available in the USA without some deviousness. Proxy server or browser plug-in. You could try thishttp://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/how-to- ... -in-the-uk but in reverse, thought I have never tried it and so can't vouch for it at all. (I found it by asking one of my sons how he gets US Netflix, and then simply googling.)

Generally speaking, once I detect even the slightest whiff of D"R"M I typically put the entire project aside in disgust.

This is not a new thing by any means, and I have a very long memory. For instance, I will have precisely nothing to do whatsoever with anything related to HBO due to their bribing^W pressuring the United States Congress into passing a law making it illegal to decrypt (even incompetently) transmissions that are broadcast over the air. This means that HBO, through its various outlets ("polluters") are passing radiation through my body that I am not legally allowed to do anything with other than accept the dose. This was an absolute abrogation of the previous policy which was the "open air" one in which if a signal passed over your property it was yours to do what you wished with it.

Then there's Macrovision -- another entity which I'll have nothing voluntarily to do with, and whose "copy-protected" videotapes in the 1980s caused havoc with my (then) state-of-the-art machinery. I forget how many legally-purchased movie tapes were returned as "Faulty: Macromedia interference".

Now there's the whole fun and games with DVD "regionalization". It's almost enough to make one give up and go back to books. At least once you buy a book you have a physical artifact -- and I've yet to hear of a book installing a rootkit on your computer. (Hi, Sony. You can rot in Hell too!)

I tend towards the same attitude towards DRM (sometimes appropriately re-expanded with "restrictions" as the middle word - if you look from the consumer's point of view). Though to be fair, I like reading in paper form, and usually will give up at the first sign of something being video at all; the latter being where DRM is most often found I tend not to see much of it.

Hmmm... it's just into the new year. Let me try to count how many hours I spent watching any form of video last year. One hand, unary? There's enough time I'd have to bet more. Two hands, unary? Not quite impossible, but probably more. One hand, binary? Hmm... That's probably about right. One more bit should cover the bases with room to spare.

Though I found the book amusing for a read, I haven't lifted a finger to get closer to the film than this thread, and probably won't, especially having read the book (usually better, IMO, based on the bare handful where I know both).

I found the film on YouTube but the coloration was way out of kilter.
I scanned through bits & pieces and was able to watch the last 10 minutes
or so. Not too bad, predictable, yet had that heart-warming family feel
at the end. Dad came around to love his son no matter what he wore.
(I got a kick out of the 'black-mail' of the headmaster )

Uncle Al