2748060818_1fe2cce71a.jpg
Shaken, Not Stirring

Taken / Ranylt Richildis

Film Reviews | February 2, 2009 | Comments (49)


Pierre Morel, of District 13 fame, has just released his second directorial effort. Like District 13, Taken is a meditation on the immigrant question wrapped in a gut-thumping actioner. Like District 13, Taken throws a lot of sweet sweet thrills at us that can’t distract us from the subtext, for better or worse. And blimey, is that subtext — and dialogue — ham-fisted and poorly written (sorry, co-writer Luc Besson). Taken contains one of the most painful set-ups I’ve ever sat through — it’s Plot for Dummies delivered through Syrup of Exposition that’s spoonfed to us like a pack of waiting ninnies. The whole thing is mindlessly propagandic (not an oxymoron after all), and the editing in the fight and chase scenes is Bourne Ultimatum beserker-esque, and decent actors come off looking like amateurs, but all in all it’s not the worst action movie I’ve seen. It’s cobbled out of clichés, and it’s ridiculous (but not over-the-top ridiculous enough to excuse it), and it will probably wind up on the wrong side of politics, à la Dirty Harry, but it can’t be totally dismissed, either, because its tension and its star, Liam Neeson, grease its clunking mechanisms enough to get it operational.

The trailer and movie poster make a plot summary redundant, but it’s part of the job description, so here goes: Neeson plays an ex-operative named Bryan Mills who retired from service in order to spend more time with his daughter, Kim (Maggie Grace), if not the wife (Famke Janssen) who already left him for a less neglectful mate. Barring contact with a few of his service buddies, Mills is rudderless, lonely, and nurturing an unhealthy daughter fixation that shows itself in his creepy scrap-booking of snapshots of events that weren’t particularly positive. Mills just wants to spend time with his spoiled, clueless kid, who in turn just wants to be spoiled and clueless. He reluctantly gives Kim permission to travel to Paris with a friend, hating to lengthen the tether he’s attached to his kin — a tether that seems to be made of 50% natural affection and 50% unsettling possessiveness. But possession is thematic in Taken; it comes to a head when Kim and her girlfriend are abducted by sex traffickers soon after arriving in France, and Mills is forced to use “a very particular set of skills” to retrieve his own from the takers.

The movie has its moments. Decent sequences include Mills beating and chasing an oily spotter named Peter, who skulks around Charles de Gaulle airport looking for young women travelling alone; Mills nurturing one of the traffickers’ victims in a hotel room in order to press info about his daughter from the girl; and Mills’ awkward interaction with a corrupt Parisian cop who may or may not be in on the crime. I said they were “decent,” though, not outstanding, and not particularly convincing (except for the way Mills wails on Peter and creates a joyous public chaos). And if impressionistic beserker editing is your poison (no action shot lasts longer than a second — many for half that), you’ll probably enjoy the thrill scenes. Some degree of care was put into those, and Neeson is awesome when he’s in Statham mode. In fact, he’s the best thing about the movie (cotton-mouthed American accent aside). It’s always nice to see a substantial actor heavy-lift like a bad-ass. When Neeson isn’t cracking skulls, he’s providing us with believable passion. There’s a moment early in the film when Mills tells his buddies that his daughter has just invited him for lunch; Neeson cracks a smile as he delivers the good news that hits the heart of desperate-daddy love.

It’s a blindingly good bit of acting that only makes the contrast between Neeson’s performance and Janssen’s (for instance) more visible. For every decent moment in Taken, there are two or three that bring the enterprise down. We’ve seen the evidence of Janssen’s abilities elsewhere, but Morel and Besson put Desperate Housewives mannerisms on her form and terrible dialogue in her mouth; action movies don’t tend to overwrite the parts of bit players, but when we notice just how poorly written they are, knuckles ought to be slapped. Maggie Grace, as Kim, is all limbs and bubble-headed flair; there’s nothing in her role or performance to latch onto, which just amplifies how much the movie is about the owners and how little about the ostensibly owned. Wives and daughters and even female pop-stars are positioned like chattel (purposefully — though for what purpose is debatable); the pop-star is a “cash cow” for her managers and the daughters are sold off to the highest bidders. Taken gives us a man’s world where women have zero agency; they live in bubbles and leave homes and homelands at their own peril. Without daddy’s or husband’s arm, they wind up tied to the bed of a rapist sheik. Women-as-property may be a notion borrowed directly from actual culture, but skins will prickle to see it so idealized (never let it be said that action movies aren’t, at bottom, pure romance).

The movie, apparently, is designed to push gender buttons, but it launches off immigration politics, too, and — if you were inclined to — can be read a certain uncomfortable way. It will make some viewers angry; others will pull the “it’s just a popcorn movie” card and shut discussion down. Make of the film what you will — it’s your viewing experience, after all. But it’s all there, mallet-subtle, and Taken doesn’t complicate itself in the end the way (so I’m told — I have yet to see it) Gran Torino does. Morel and Besson have given us a picture that can inspire a lot of “are they or aren’t they?” questions in anyone with a grasp of current French politics, and it can generate a solid thirty minutes of hectic post-viewing conversation for the predisposed. Unlike District 13, Taken is entirely pro-West — no French filmmaker can put what Morel and Besson put onscreen “accidentally” or naively and not know what compatriots will make of it. Not in 2009. It all makes for a picture much more interesting than the sum of its parts — even a picture that seems to have been written for trailer soundbites alone, and built on shocks that aren’t, ultimately, as shocking as designed.

Ranylt Richildis plays with words and ideas in Ottawa, Canada. You can email her here.


Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao Book Review | The Best Superbowl Commercials 2009





Comments

Qui Gon is in it, using a particular and specific set of skills to place his feet up people's asses.

I'm there.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 1, 2009 11:44 AM

hrm, i really shoulda gone to see this BEFORE reading the review. I was all set to lurv Liam in this... am easy bait for Neeson + Bourne + foreign locales.

Oh well, we'll go see this next week, have a bucket of beers and some burgers, and not care that it sucks.

Posted by: Stella at February 1, 2009 11:54 AM

Saw it when it opened cuz I love me some Liam. And I'm gonna continue lovin' him. I enjoyed this movie like a fat kid loves cake.

Posted by: PissBoy at February 1, 2009 11:59 AM

Damn, damn, damn! I don't want socio-political subtext with my ass kicking.

What's next? The Statham does a movie about the genocide in the Sudan?

I think I'll just stick my fingers in my ears and watch Rob Roy kick some ass.

Posted by: admin at February 1, 2009 12:09 PM

I thought the film was entertaining as hell - especially Liam Neeson, who just tears shit up.

Posted by: GAZ at February 1, 2009 12:38 PM

The trailer irritates the piss out of me. Probably in large part because I see it all the damn time. But it also just looks retarded, which makes me sad because I was all set to love it since it features my girlfriend, Famke, and one of my girlcrushes, Maggie. How could it not rock with such hotness in it? Sigh.

Posted by: Gabs at February 1, 2009 12:41 PM

This film contains every action movie cliche ever invented.
-Dozens of bad guys with machine guns fail to even scratch the hero, much less render his car inoperable.

-A ridiculous time limit is imposed- presumably to add urgency to the plot- and the hero manages to overcome it with no apparent difficulty. Need to get from LA to Paris and find your first clue in a matter of hours?
No prob.

-Apparently Dunkin Croissants was very busy during the movie as the French police are nowhere to be seen (save for one scene so the hero can show how smart he is...TWO cells phones! Genius!)

The list just goes on.
Calling this movie "generic" insults mediocrity everywhere.

Posted by: clocker at February 1, 2009 12:48 PM

Saw it yesterday, and I have to agree with RanyIt.

The writing was ridiculous, and Janssen's character (easily the worst) came off as an unreasonable, vindictive shrew. Even when Brian made some good points (traveling in groups, staying in contact, basic travel tips), both her and Kim repeatedly blow him off.

Plus, considering that she knew what kind of work he was in, you think that maybe, just maybe, she would take his word for it on some of that stuff. It seemed like she was more concerned about screwing over her ex than her daughter (until she gets kidnapped, of course). And the pop star bit was wholly disposable.

The rest is a big dumb action flick glossed over with Bourne lacquer. Which, now knowing who wrote it, isn't that surprising. Hell, this could have been Transporter 4 for need of an indestructible car.

Still, if this version of Liam Neeson was in Star Wars, the Empire would have lasted no more than thirty minutes.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 1, 2009 1:25 PM

Two other points:

- Neeson was actually TRYING to do an American accent? Really? Huh. He probably shouldn't do that.

- This movie made sure to follow the Hollywood Law of Paris: plenty of Eiffel Tower shots and everyone has that long bread in their groceries (seriously, what is up with that?).

Posted by: Vermillion at February 1, 2009 1:29 PM

Great review, Ranylt! I just saw it last night and thought it was a Bruce Willis movie with a little more cerebral lead than usual. And it looked like hand-held cameras have been replaced by feet-held in some of the action scenes. All in all, it rested on Liam's shoulders and he did a good job when he was in action mode. I wouldn't see it again, but I would recommend it to some of my testosterone addicted buddies.

Posted by: sabian30 at February 1, 2009 1:47 PM

Neeson was actually TRYING to do an American accent?

No, he sounded like...Liam Neeson. I didn't hear any accent attempt.

Qui Gon is in it, using a particular and specific set of skills to place his feet up people's asses.

That's exactly what it is.

The whole thing is mindlessly propagandic

That's not what it is.

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 2:17 PM

(Also the action was choppy but still a lot more literally watchable than "The Bourne Ultimatum". That one was a nightmare)

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 2:21 PM

This film came out months ago in Europe. It's pretty enjoyable especially since Liam kicks ass in ways that Bruce Willis can only dream of. I had a few problems with it that surprisingly haven't been mentioned:

1. The girl is 17 yet acts like a 10 year old. Really. Even the way she runs, grinning like a fucking moron. Her "crazy" friend behaved more like a 17 year old.

2. The whole "Oh my God, you can't go to Europe alone, someone will kill you or kidnap you and then sell you on the black market to scary Arabs." was a bit much. Come on...the dude was acting like the kid was going to a freaking war zone! Or do Americans usually assume that shit like that happens all the time in Europe?

Posted by: Joker at February 1, 2009 2:22 PM

do Americans usually assume that shit like that happens all the time in Europe?

No, I think it's just plot. What gives our hero an excuse to go tear-assing around Paris? Actually I don't think white slavery and such is on a lot of people's minds here, I've never heard my mom say "That's how it is over there!" (and she would) so it's not really preying on any typical American prejudices. Maybe the French hate the Albanians, I don't know.

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 2:28 PM

I think Neeson is one of the good guys in Hollywood so I won't hold this movie against him.

Posted by: Pookie at February 1, 2009 2:31 PM

*spoiler-ish*

An hour and forty minutes went by quickly. Liam Neeson knocks out about 50 guys with one punch each. The French Ministry of Munitions is emptied into his vehicles with no apparent impact. Lengthy violent confrontations occur on airport premises with nary a cop or soldier in sight. And our hero gets handcuffed to the one loose bolt in the ceiling, after single-handledly infiltrating a sex slave ganghouse, a secret underground sex slave auction, and a sheik's yacht, all heavily guarded by numerous heavily armed men.

Every woman in the film is (a) an empty-headed teenager implicity begging to get kidnapped, (b) a nasty harpy undermining the menfolk, or (c) a drugged-out sex slave. Every foreigner in the film is (a) an Albanian sex-trafficker, (b) a wealthy girl-enslaver, or (c) a cop helping one of the foregoing types.

It's passable as a distraction, but try not to think too hard about why you're enjoying it. Future Pajiba Hangover Theater, meet your newest member.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at February 1, 2009 2:45 PM

Actually, I think we now have....."The Mick".

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 2:47 PM

I heard that in the Director's Cut the French promptly surrender to Neeson, that's why you don't see any French authority around.

True Story

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 1, 2009 3:04 PM

See, we're really just watching French self-loathing here.

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 3:11 PM

Hey...typical Hollywood stereotypes of foreigners aside, I'd surrender to Neeson anytime. He's old enough to be my father, but still...there's something about his quiet violence that just...mmm.

rikki, isn't that the basic formula of any Hollywood action movie? Even in the Bourne movies, they had to change the character of Marie because in the books she was intelligent, resourceful and strong. We can't have that. What's next? The right to vote?

Posted by: Joker at February 1, 2009 3:13 PM

Well, remember, it's not a Hollywood movie.

Oh, funny. The reviewer at Aint It Cool compared it to "Commando".

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 3:17 PM

*****SPOILERS*****

Enjoyed the movie enough to not completely forget about the next day, but notice that no one made anything of the girl's friend? After all this emphasis on father-daughter relationships, and nothing about the other dead teenager who had also been kidnapped? "Hello, Mr. and Mrs. So-and-so... your daughter? Rotting on a bed France. Shit, did I say that out loud Oh well, MINE'S okay. Cheers."


******END SPOILERS**********

Posted by: whiskeyred at February 1, 2009 3:23 PM

The whole "Oh my God, you can't go to Europe alone, someone will kill you or kidnap you and then sell you on the black market to scary Arabs." was a bit much. Come on...the dude was acting like the kid was going to a freaking war zone! Or do Americans usually assume that shit like that happens all the time in Europe?

Thing is, it was more a problem with the location than the premise. Now, if it was set in South America or something like that, where it is fairly known that the law is merely a conveinience, then it would be a lot more plausible. Which is why I didn't have a problem with his concerns over the girl traveling alone. It is fairly common traveling advice, with a twinge of over-protectiveness.

But it is freaking PARIS, FRANCE. One of the most famous cities in the world. Not saying it couldn't happen, but please: a pair of cute white American girls (with rich parents) goes missing in the City of Lights, and the cops are like "eh, c'st la vie"? Nancy Grace alone would have been screaming for nuclear Armageddon if it was real.

Which is why we should keep this film firmly in the "don't think about it" arena.

Posted by: Vermillion at February 1, 2009 3:23 PM

isn't that the basic formula of any Hollywood action movie?

I'd agree, joker, that those movies are male-centric, but not to the exclusion of Pamela Landy, a smart, capable CIA leader, or the Julia Stiles character (who does sort of suck as a character, but isn't just a cipher). I didn't read the books, but I thought Potente's character was a cut above the usual girlfriend character. Taken was pretty extreme in this regard.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at February 1, 2009 3:29 PM

I'll be skipping this movie, but I enjoyed reading the review. Thanks, Ranylt.

Posted by: Elfrieda at February 1, 2009 3:29 PM

I'm coming out of lurk-mode only to comment on clocker's comment...


"Dunkin Croissants" officially made me choke on my coffee. I'm still laughing.

Also, this movie looks like it would make my brain hurt. And not in an intellectual way.

Posted by: Lyric at February 1, 2009 4:03 PM

Aside: RanYit. Morel's movie is District B13 (As in Banlieue 13).

So I caught it last night in a packed theater. And all I could think is...Didn't I see this movie years ago starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and a little kid named Alyssa Milano?

Fact is there's very little plot, set-up or conflict because it's not needed. A Dad is looking for his daughter and using his talents to find her. Is he supposed to be debating the merit of his actions with her captors? Or stopping for the moments of self-doubt that plague Jason Bourne?

I think the difference between Taken and a movie like Crank or Shoot 'Em Up is that Taken does not allow you the freedom to dismiss its flaws by being as cartoony as possible.

The movie isn't that great. It's empty calories. A Twinkie of a movie. You enjoy it but can't feel good about what you enjoyed.

Posted by: Fredo at February 1, 2009 4:06 PM

Oh, funny. The reviewer at Aint It Cool compared it to "Commando".

Meaning they said it's a giant pile of shit?

Posted by: TK at February 1, 2009 4:15 PM

I don't know where you get your delusions, laser brain.

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 4:19 PM

Meaning they said it's a giant pile of shit?

Posted by: TK at February 1, 2009 4:15 PM

----------------------------------------------

...and a million times better than True Lies..

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 1, 2009 4:27 PM

Oh, funny. The reviewer at Aint It Cool compared it to "Commando".

Meaning they said it's a giant pile of shit?

I made the same comparison. Super-trained Super-Dad tears through countless faceless villains to retrieve his daughter? How many movies of that ilk have been made?

There might be a more intriguing film in the pre-chopped, pre-PG13 version. Maybe.

Posted by: Fredo at February 1, 2009 4:27 PM

Sounds like one for the Superior Trailer/Mediocre Movie hall of fame. Seriously, how awesome is Neeson in the trailer with the whole quiet and matter of fact "if it's money you want I don't have any ... very particular set of skills ... nightmare to people like you ... I will find you, and I will kill you" speech?

Sort of like how after Gladiator, it's impossible to not shout "in this life or the next, I will have my vengeance" at the screen every time Russell Crowe's character is wronged in any way in any film, after this film I don't know if I'll be able to see Liam Neeson be wronged without muttering, "I have a very particular set of skills".

Posted by: stipe42 at February 1, 2009 4:42 PM

One thing that did bother me: The whole point behind the girls' trip to Paris is to go on a cross-European trip [i]as they follow U2.[/i]

Uhh....how do I ask this delicately?

What 17 year old girls do you know are so mad over U2 that they're going to follow them across Europe? Huh? Couldn't we find a more age-appropriate artist?

Posted by: Fredo at February 1, 2009 5:12 PM

Ageist.

Posted by: Jay at February 1, 2009 5:28 PM

Hey, I don't think even U2's teenage kids want to follow them across Europe!

Now those Jonas Brothers....

Posted by: Fredo at February 1, 2009 5:51 PM

A Sunday review? Coming soon: Seven-day-a-week 'Jib'? Like I don't waste enough time Mon-Fri.

Anyway, today's options were:
"Slumdog Millionaire"
"The Wrestler"
"Rachel Getting Married" and
this.

Mrs. Daddy and I picked "Slumdog," and it's terrific. Looks like it was the right decision.

Posted by: bucdaddy at February 1, 2009 8:46 PM

I have to say...I liked this movie, mostly because of Neeson's performance, which I felt was fairly nuanced, especially for this kind of picture. Jannsen annoyed, but she wasn't any more hamfisted than she usually is. The girl was kind of invisible, and the only time I really 'saw' her was during the bidding scene...there was something about the shot that really got to me, the confusion and the sheer freaky factor i guess.

But I think the reason I enjoyed as much as I did was the subject of the sex trade. I have a friend that was almost 'taken', and while her experience was not nearly as harrowing, it made this hit a bit close to home, identify with the situation a bit more. And while it might not have been the best written of Besson's work, it definitely stuck with me, for several days afterward.

Oh and whiskeyred, the fact they just kind of glossed over her friend kinda bothered me to...I mean, did he even bother to have her body recovered?

Posted by: Smokin at February 1, 2009 11:02 PM

"everyone has that long bread in their groceries (seriously, what is up with that?)."

Vermillion, it's Neon, your Friendly Neighborhood American in Paris.

There are so many ridiculous, untrue stereotypes about the French perpetrated in American movies, I wouldn't even know where to begin.

But the long baguette bread in everyone's groceries?

That one's true.

French families eat baguette bread every day. They buy at least one, every single day.

Posted by: Neon at February 2, 2009 3:50 AM

So, they AREN'T surrendering to Germany as I write this...?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at February 2, 2009 5:37 AM

Well, BarbadoSlim, they haven't surrendered to Germany yet today ... but it is only 1pm here!

Posted by: Neon at February 2, 2009 7:11 AM

"Joyous Public Chaos." I may have to see this movie just to understand the true depth of meaning in that phrase.

Because I like to think I create Joyous Public Chaos whenever my daughter is a brat in public because she's counting on me to be too embarrassed to discipline her in front of a crowd. She's wrong, FWIW. Now I know what to call it!

Posted by: Wednesday at February 2, 2009 10:44 AM

Ever since I found out that Carrot
Ironfoundersson was loosely based on Neeson, I fallen a bit in love with him.

So, out of support, I won't see this movie. Buggrit.

Posted by: Sweetie Dahling at February 2, 2009 3:49 PM

Actually the government in France estimates that most of the 18,000 women in France's commercial sex trade are victims of human trafficking.

27 million people are held in bondage today, most of them women and children. So it is not that far-fetched that two naive young American women could be taken and sold.

Now as far as the movie is concerned having seen the trailer what did the reviewer expect? Proust?

I saw it Saturday, pretty much what I expected and Liam was great in action mode. But what do you expect from a film whose main narrative is based on two of the oldest male fantasies in existence; women as completely disposable sexual objects and the male lone-wolf as murderous avenger with absolutely NO consequences.

Posted by: allheavens at February 2, 2009 4:23 PM

(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)You'll find the best selection of hot babes, sexy singles at the exclusive interracial dating community,****Mixedfriends. c o m ****. Come in and stay a while. Post a message, a pic of yourself and check out the hot photo galleries. You are guaranteed to find someone you like there.(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)

Posted by: robert at February 2, 2009 9:03 PM

i saw this a couple months ago when it came out in london, and as much as i like a good retarded action movie, this one left me with a bad taste in my mouth. not that anyone can't guess what happens, but the SLUT DIES and the VIRGIN LIVES. yaaaaaaay morals.

Posted by: dannon at February 2, 2009 9:35 PM

joker
thank you
"1. The girl is 17 yet acts like a 10 year old. Really. Even the way she runs, grinning like a fucking moron. Her "crazy" friend behaved more like a 17 year old."
this was probably my biggest bitch with the movie. we've seen maggie grace play adult. she does it reasonably well, but the bitch cannot play 17. she acted like my 10 year old. it was sofa king annoying

oh, and the crank 2 trailer?
complete and utter shit
you suck jason statham

Posted by: courtney 1 at February 2, 2009 11:45 PM

this was a really bad movie even for january. it doesn't come close to being mediocre. the frantic quick-cut editing, lame writing and preposterous plot sequences make it an early candidate for " the worst " list at years end. it is a shame to waste liam neeson on this atrocity but i guess a payday is a payday. there was not a plausible moment in the entire film and the only plus was the length as it abruptly ended well before the 2 hour mark.

Posted by: snake at February 4, 2009 12:46 AM

and how about the dozens of other chained, drugged women he came across ... did he at least alert authorities to have them rescued? That bugged the crap out of me. "You're not my daughter, sucks for you."

Posted by: j at February 5, 2009 10:56 PM

Ranylt,

For whatever reason, your review has caused me to de-lurk for the second time in Pajiba's history. I normally don't comment on reviews, but seeing as how I'm a graduate of McGill law school who works for the UN, and you're a fellow Canadian, you have the dubious distinction of being held to a higher standard than the American reviewers.

For the record, I thought Taken was a cliched action movie, and am not going to defend its cinematic merits; I thought Neeson did a decent job, but it's certainly not in the same realm as the Bourne trilogy. I agree that this film is nothing special.

That said, your comments regarding female agency and "immigration politics" I thought were widely off the mark. I agree that the film scene regarding the pop star at the beginning of the film was silly and unecessary, but I don't agree that the idea of a young woman being kidnapped in a foreign country for the purposes of sex trafficking is absurd; in fact, it's a multi-billion dollar industry. Being an academic, I doubt you respond well to criticism, but let me reiterate: as we speak, within a few dozen miles from you in Ottawa, there are young women from European countries who were promised decent employment and are now strippers and prostitutes. As to the criticism that the women in the movie lack "agency", well, not to again, diminish your optimism, but most women, in reality, aren't capable of single-handedly slaying a slavery cartel; CIA agents don't typically embark on mass-assassination sprees, either, but are certainly more capable and more experienced with homicide than 17-year-old girls.

As to the criticism that the film was "anti-immigration" I'm not sure that I follow. Are you asserting:
1) that only Americans traffic in young women, and that asserting that Europeans and people from the Middle East might also be involved is wrong?

2) that it's improper for a French director to dramatize the depredations of the Albanian mafia (acting as low and intermediate henchmen)?

3) that somehow, despite the fact that the mastermind behind the sex-traffic ring was clearly American, the film is anti-immigration?

Forgive me for being, perhaps, obtuse, but the last time I checked, any number of movies that feature naive American teenagers being kidnapped and killed in any number of horror or thriller movies in the United States don't draw the criticism that the film is "anti-American." And when a film sensationalizes how American women can be kidnapped in France (when they could more realistically be [and are] kidnapped in Columbia, Mexico, Ecuador, Yemen, etc.) your first thought is "oh shucks, that's unfair"? The only conclusion I can draw from this is that either:

1) you don't believe that women are sold into slavery (which is insulting fallacious),

2) it's inappropriate for this group of French writers depicting American characters to describe how the Albanian mafia can be hired by an American
organized crime boss, and that you only accept "genuine" depictions of the Albanian sex-traffickers from real Albania filmmakers (don't hold your breath for that, by the way) or

3) it's just generally inappropriate for people to assert that people from other countries commit heinous crimes, and if they do, that's "anti-immigration." If so, congratulations: you've taken cultural relativism to just dizzying heights.


I'll be sure to tell the women I work with who were imported illegally to Canada by the Moldovan mafia that they just should have asserted their agency.

Posted by: Skeptical at February 6, 2009 2:12 AM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.