Register Login Contact Us

Were the millers kissing scene, Thai were miller the guy kissing for scene

Parents' Ultimate Guide to

Were The Millers Kissing Scene

Online: Now


The R-rated movie casts Jason Sudeikis as David, a low-level marijuana dealer, and Aniston as a stripper named Rose, who team up to smuggle drugs out of Mexico into the United States for a huge payday. David also enlists the help of Casey and Kenny, two lonely, neglected teens -- played by Roberts and Poulter -- to help create the illusion of a wholesome family traveling on a vacation in a recreational vehicle. During one scene, Rose and Casey try to teach Kenny how to properly kiss a girl because he is inexperienced and has a crush on the daughter of another family traveling by RV. Of course, Melissa, the true object of his affection -- played by Molly Quinn -- walks in on the tutorial and is horrified because she thinks Kenny is kissing his mother and sister.

Name: Bobbette
Years: I'm 28 years old
Where am I from: Portuguese
Service for: Male
Tone of my iris: Misty brown

Views: 46615

Hot search

All that I remember is that he is male, in fact, but any ificant details past that are merely an internet search away. Getting back to the film, the different pieces of the family, I think, are worth briefly touching upon, just to get a sense of their dynamic and our perspective on them as viewers. David, played by Jason Sudeikis, is a single-man, yet more importantly, a local drug dealer in Denver. That seems to be his main source of income, until all of his money and weed is stolen by thugs.

In contrast, Rose, or who later comes to be known as Sarah, played by Jennifer Aniston, is a stripper in the Denver area in much need of cash and housing, due to the actions of her ex-boyfriend. And lastly is Casey, a runaway kid, who is portrayed as living on the streets and in desperate need of money.

These four together and become the Millers, all just so David can receive a major payday from a much larger, wealthier drug lord in the area. The humor and personalities that each and every individual brings to this film varies between them, and ultimately, helps structure the obscure dynamic that the Millers create.

Right from the beginning we are led to see Rose as a stripper, that is part of our first impression of her. David, well aware of Rose and her occupation, goes to the strip club in seek of bringing Rose with him, and the others, to make this trip down to Mexico, a trip that she originally denies, until she recognizes her desperate need for finances. David takes her occupation as a stripper and shoves its reputation back into her face, merely acting as if it defines her own self-worth, while further reinforcing a scene that accepts male dominance and female subjugation.

About we re-the-millers-kissing-scene-kenny-and-melissa

Switching gears, Kenny provides us a bit of a different personality and different viewpoint than that of Rose. The scene eventually arrives at Kenny trading off makeouts with Casey and Rose, practicing; all the while David is looking on while eating a bag of chips, as if an innocent bystander looking in on the spectacle and taking in its full effects.

I mean, he even takes a picture of Kenny and Casey kissing. Coming back to Rose, the pinnacle of the male lens is displayed in times of desperate measure for the Millers.

Kissing scene

Yes, she makes one final return to her prior occupation, exposing her body to the pleasure of male eyes. The scene itself, at times, attempts to even make it seem glamorous, with assistance of the sunlight, a shower, and sparks. You can nearly sense the intention of a male gaze as David looks directly into the camera and shrugs, raising his eyebrows, almost as if the mere exposure of Rose is not only invaluable to him, but acceptable as long as they are safe, not to mention the fact that it may be visually pleasurable to him, as well as Kenny, as he adjusts his pants in what looks to be a nearly unbreakable captivation.

Does the film do anything to show this to us as viewers, to show that Rose is more than a stripping teaseful distraction in order for everyone to be safe, to escape?

Not really. Aside from these moments that either objectify women or reinforce male dominance and influence, David tends to make comments that either result in women being furtherly objectified or that would be seen as disrespectful towards women in any usual circumstance throughout the entirety of the film.

But the film creates something different for us. The movie normalizes these jokes and it allows and guides us to accept them through our laughter, no matter how wrong, crooked, and disrespectful that they may be.

Due to that normalization, a male perspective is built up further, as males are practically given a more dominant role, due to the subjugation of women. It is not necessarily generated through the viewer, but rather through the way the viewer is led to see and interpret the film. In the end, David does, in fact, grow to care and respect these people, but that may be laid out to us to keep viewers on his side, to let him off and reside with him, as we begin to realize his selfishness.

We easily forgive him.

The somewhat crooked way of seeing the ending of this film, as the four of them move into a home together, under a witness protection program, is that David ends up actually changing the lives of those who came with him maybe even for the better. All the visual matters and jokes that support male empowerment and female objectification, are really somewhat trivial, they only support the true major source that is the problem with the whole male lens in its own right.

The biggest problem is that the male lens of these films makes the objectification and subjugation of these women appear normal, it makes it appear okay and acceptable. The views of women exposing themselves normalizes that scene to us as the viewers, we come to see it, maybe even expect it. I have written this essay in the style of Chuck Klosterman.

Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell, Thurber, Rawson Marshall, director. Warner Bros, An earlier draft of this essay was read by Cory Lund.