CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media - Page 4

post #151 of 4705
Thread Starter 
I'd have to really look at Oblivion (I've only seen bits of it), but I think Cruise tends to look older when he wears his hair long.
post #152 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I'll go ahead and take a wild guess that the A-list superhero actor was Robert Downey Jr. Also, this article couldn't be better timed with the release of the M:I-5 trailer. Cruise is fit for his age, but something has been going on for years.

 

I was trying to puzzle out who the A-lister mentioned was, but I'm horrible at that kind of stuff. I have ZERO doubts that all sorts of strategic digital manipulation has been aiding Cruise's appearance for a good number of years now.

 

Quote:
an actor linked to a beloved movie character lamented over chopped salads and Diet Cokes that the years had all but deep-sixed a long-gestating sequel. 

 

What sequel/character, if it's Downey?

post #153 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

but I think Cruise tends to look older when he wears his hair long.

 

I would agree with that.

 

 


ehehehehe

 

oog oog ape chest

post #154 of 4705
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

I was trying to puzzle out who the A-lister mentioned was, but I'm horrible at that kind of stuff. I have ZERO doubts that all sorts of strategic digital manipulation has been aiding Cruise's appearance for a good number of years now.


What sequel/character, if it's Downey?


I don't know who chopped salad guy is. That's from a different part of the article than what I'm referring to.
post #155 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

I don't know who chopped salad guy is. That's from a different part of the article than what I'm referring to.

 

Ah, sorry. I found the part you're talking about:

 

Quote:
Another beauty artist from a different company who did not want to be named recalled a time when an A-list star in a superhero film was unhappy with his crow’s feet in a closeup. When the usual technique to smooth them out wasn’t yielding a natural-looking result, the VFX team copied the crow’s feet from a slightly younger actor’s face and voila! The world’s first wrinkle-transplant was a success.

 

Yeah, I'd bet that's RDJ.

post #156 of 4705

I would also assume that it's being done in some way for Daniel Craig in the Bond movies.

post #157 of 4705
Thread Starter 
It's funny, but I don't think the article mentions Anthony Hopkins in Red Dragon. I remember the technology was rather openly discussed simply because of when the story took place.
post #158 of 4705

Uh oh, even with Cruise's suspiciously youthening looks I'd never really thought about this possibility. Now every time I see an ageing star I'll be scanning their face for tell-tale signs...

post #159 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I would also assume that it's being done in some way for Daniel Craig in the Bond movies.

Craig is simply finished aging. He's like Patrick Stewart. Once you hit the level cap, you stop leveling.
post #160 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I would also assume that it's being done in some way for Daniel Craig in the Bond movies.

 

Funnily enough it was the opposite, in SKYFALL at least.  The early parts of the movie they make a concerted effort to make Bond look old and haggard.  

 

And even looking at BTS stuff for SPECTRE...the guy doesn't need it.

post #161 of 4705
Can't imagine Deakins thinking too highly of those kind of antics.
post #162 of 4705
I've heard behind the scenes stuff can get touched up too.

Eheheheh


Really, all of Hollywood is just mocapped by Serkis.
post #163 of 4705

I was reading an article over at Hitfix about that new Will Ferrel/Kevin Hart comedy 'Get Hard' that was pretty much just the author raging on the movie for being homophobic because it jokes about prison rape.

 

And my mind immediately went to Animal House, a movie that features one of it's protagonists debating date raping an underage girl (which he doesn't) and later sleeping with her consensually.  I mean, there's no way in hell that you could do that today.  They'd do the twitter equivalent of dragging you in the street and setting you on fire.   Animal House is a classic, a movie that's inspired countless people to get into comedy and produce great works.  Without Animal House's success, we might not have gotten a lot of comedies that we know and love.

 

Now, obviously I'm not saying Get Hard is the new Animal House.  But that article really worried me about censorship in comedy.  Where do we draw the line in comedy about what is and what isn't ok to joke about?  Animal House is as great as it is because it doesn't hold back.  South Park has produced countless classic episodes because they are free to make fun about literally anything.  And countless stand-up acts like George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor and Louis CK have notoriously been joking about countless touchy subjects.  Artists free to do what they want can often produce great work.  Now, a lot of lesser talent can try to do the same and come off as crass or tasteless.  But isn't that worth it for the possibility of greatness?

 

I just feel that saying "It's not ok to joke about this issue" is a really slippery slope to go down.  Art, for better or worse, should not be restricted in any way.  The freedom of expression can't be curtailed just cause Kevin Hart makes a few shitty "don't drop the soap" jokes.

post #164 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

I've heard behind the scenes stuff can get touched up too.

Eheheheh


Really, all of Hollywood is just mocapped by Serkis.

 

Art is a lie.  Nothing is real.  No free will.

 

But this does make me wonder.  Is using CGI to touch up some lines on an actor's face really much worse than all the countless botox and plastic surgery procedures actors regularly go through?  Or hell, even make up that's been used for centuries?  It's all just symptoms of the Hollywood image problem.  The need to create the illusion of perfection has always been there.  They're just realising how easy it is to use CGI now.

post #165 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

 

 Is using CGI to touch up some lines on an actor's face really much worse than all the countless botox and plastic surgery procedures actors regularly go through?  Or hell, even make up that's been used for centuries?  It's all just symptoms of the Hollywood image problem.  The need to create the illusion of perfection has always been there.  They're just realising how easy it is to use CGI now.

 

I don't think it's worse.  But either one goes toward the main problem of so much of media being affected by the illusion of perfection that it fucks with the standards of beauty in a culture in unhealthy ways.

 

So if it just stayed within the realm of movies, whatever.  But nothing is for free.  Art may use 'lies' but it's often to reach people to express some kind of truth.  That element of art ends up affecting everyone in some way.

 

 

 

no free will

post #166 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

I was reading an article over at Hitfix about that new Will Ferrel/Kevin Hart comedy 'Get Hard' that was pretty much just the author raging on the movie for being homophobic because it jokes about prison rape.

 

And my mind immediately went to Animal House, a movie that features one of it's protagonists debating date raping an underage girl (which he doesn't) and later sleeping with her consensually.  I mean, there's no way in hell that you could do that today.  They'd do the twitter equivalent of dragging you in the street and setting you on fire.   Animal House is a classic, a movie that's inspired countless people to get into comedy and produce great works.  Without Animal House's success, we might not have gotten a lot of comedies that we know and love.

 

Now, obviously I'm not saying Get Hard is the new Animal House.  But that article really worried me about censorship in comedy.  Where do we draw the line in comedy about what is and what isn't ok to joke about?  Animal House is as great as it is because it doesn't hold back.  South Park has produced countless classic episodes because they are free to make fun about literally anything.  And countless stand-up acts like George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Richard Pryor and Louis CK have notoriously been joking about countless touchy subjects.  Artists free to do what they want can often produce great work.  Now, a lot of lesser talent can try to do the same and come off as crass or tasteless.  But isn't that worth it for the possibility of greatness?

 

I just feel that saying "It's not ok to joke about this issue" is a really slippery slope to go down.  Art, for better or worse, should not be restricted in any way.  The freedom of expression can't be curtailed just cause Kevin Hart makes a few shitty "don't drop the soap" jokes.

 

 

How much shit would Blazing Saddles get today for it's racial comedy - that's right, RACIAL, not RACIST. Because even though the jokes often feature very un-PC language, the people the language is directed at are normal; the people using it are fucking morons, and this is obvious. 

 

 

I mean, the whole movie is pretty much premised on Sheriff Bart being the smartest, most likable guy in the room and not deserving that bullshit. Not to mention in a choice between the black characters and white characters, it's no contest that you'd much rather hang with the black characters. 

post #167 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

But this does make me wonder.  Is using CGI to touch up some lines on an actor's face really much worse than all the countless botox and plastic surgery procedures actors regularly go through?  Or hell, even make up that's been used for centuries?  It's all just symptoms of the Hollywood image problem.  The need to create the illusion of perfection has always been there.  They're just realising how easy it is to use CGI now.

 

What it makes me think of is the old classical Hollywood technique of shooting actresses close ups in soft focus to make them seem flawlessly angelic and glowing. They started out pushing this glamourous heightened reality, then gradually brought things down to earth over decades, now they've come a full circle.

 

It also reminds me of the bit in Infinite Jest about video phones, where everyone gets so insecure about their appearance they start communicating through digital masks.

 

What interests me now is, how long until someone pushes it too far? Everyone noticed it in The Hobbit, but they were openly trying to push back the clock so it wasn't a big deal. But sooner or later someone we *know* is no spring chicken anymore will try to pass themselves off as some kind of digital monstrosity and fall into the uncanny valley, blowing this shit wide open. Think of what delicious thinkpieces will result!!

 

I also wonder if it'll make megastars more picky and paranoid about what projects they let themselves appear in. If you lock yourself away in smoothed-over Marvel land you might convince the world you're something you're not, but if PTA or someone wants to film you on 70mm that's not going to fly.

post #168 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
I don't think it's worse.  But either one goes toward the main problem of so much of media being affected by the illusion of perfection that it fucks with the standards of beauty in a culture in unhealthy ways.

 

Yup. This is my objection and problem with it. Nothing we see in movies is real - or next to nothing - and we should educate ourselves as consumers to remember that. 

 

But the bigger problem is the unrealistic, unhealthy standard of perceived perfection. Yes, it affects men to a degree, but it's women who are severly damaged by it. This is no better than the bullshit that fashion magazines do - it's just more subtle. All of it communicates the same message: beautiful is young, beautiful is abnornally thin, beautiful is perfectly proportioned.

post #169 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post

 

I just feel that saying "It's not ok to joke about this issue" is a really slippery slope to go down.  Art, for better or worse, should not be restricted in any way.  The freedom of expression can't be curtailed just cause Kevin Hart makes a few shitty "don't drop the soap" jokes.

But is it specifically calling for the censorship and banning of the film? If it is I agree with you. If it isn't.....

 

You're right that artists have the right to produce what they want, and I agree with you censorship is indeed a slippery slope to something more alarming. But, consumers (critics and audiences alike) reserve the right to call artists out on their bullshit. Criticism works both ways. The problem with your examples is that these examples are actually, you know, funny. Guys like Louie C.K. and George Carlin made a living teetering on the border of offensiveness--but it's never done simply for the sake of it. These guys are insightful motherfuckers and there's always a point to their jokes. 

 

Get Hard? I cringed when I first saw that trailer. And while it at least seems self-aware enough to not be completely idiotic, it just seems lazy. And all the reviews point out that.

post #170 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

 

What it makes me think of is the old classical Hollywood technique of shooting actresses close ups in soft focus to make them seem flawlessly angelic and glowing. They started out pushing this glamourous heightened reality, then gradually brought things down to earth over decades, now they've come a full circle.

 

Yeah, I have no idea how people back then registered the obvious (to us) vaseline on the lens.  But films were either black and white or glorious technicolor in that heightened way.

 

In the full circle, we have media that tries to get at the illusion of perfect beauty by fooling us into believing a reality through the use of the immediacy of current technology (reality TV, go-pro footage, digital video).

post #171 of 4705
Hollywood will adapt to high definition by promoting stars who look younger than they are. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Arianna Grande's stiletto boot stamping on a human face - forever.
post #172 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

 

Yeah, I have no idea how people back then registered the obvious (to us) vaseline on the lens.  But films were either black and white or glorious technicolor in that heightened way.

 

In the full circle, we have media that tries to get at the illusion of perfect beauty by fooling us into believing a reality through the use of the immediacy of current technology (reality TV, go-pro footage, digital video).

 

When you say media, did you mean the equipment used as in "The Media is the Message" or media ala Fox, ABC, TMZ, in the reporting "news" sense?

post #173 of 4705

ALL of it.

 

The technical/financial/financial means of capturing and broadcasting AND the art/aesthetics behind it.

 

Cinema, journalism, tabloid, paparazzi, etc

 

However a culture creates and absorbs any information.

post #174 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

 

You're right that artists have the right to produce what they want, and I agree with you censorship is indeed a slippery slope to something more alarming. But, consumers (critics and audiences alike) reserve the right to call artists out on their bullshit. Criticism works both ways. The problem with your examples is that these examples are actually, you know, funny. Guys like Louie C.K. and George Carlin made a living teetering on the border of offensiveness--but it's never done simply for the sake of it. These guys are insightful motherfuckers and there's always a point to their jokes. 

 

Get Hard? I cringed when I first saw that trailer. And while it at least seems self-aware enough to not be completely idiotic, it just seems lazy. And all the reviews point out that.

 

Call bad jokes out all you want.  But to me, there is a world of difference between saying "These jokes about prison rape just fall flat and fail at their intent."  and "These so-called jokes are concealing an ugly core of homophobia and bigotry."  

 

One is a totally valid criticism.  The other...that's injecting an agenda into criticisms.  Something I have absolutely NO time for.

 

To use a less funny and intelligent example:  Family Guy.  Seth McFarlane regularly gets away with really tasteless and vulgar shit.  But you don't see these type of thinkpieces dedicated to exposing him as a homophobe.  And does anyone really believe Adam McKay and Will Ferrel are homophobic?

It's shitty, shitty journalism, capitalising on whatever hot button issues are en vogue to get hits.  And speaking for myself,  THAT needs to get called out much more than a crappy comedy.

post #175 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

ALL of it.

 

The technical/financial/financial means of capturing and broadcasting AND the art/aesthetics behind it.

 

Cinema, journalism, tabloid, paparazzi, etc

 

However a culture creates and absorbs any information.

 

With something like beauty, it is kind of frightening to think about how much of it is contrived at the very least nowadays.  That article above about digital touchups kind of prove that the standard for beauty we have now is an impossible one.  It's just too damn easy to get fooled by the illusion and spectacle of it all. 

 

I've always kind of felt that people have a lot less control over their lives than is given credit for and that societal forces at play can be quite dominating, personality wise.  It's easy to feel like shit about something when you don't look or dress the way STARS AND RICH PEOPLE DO, because they look so good they must be doing something right.   And then you have the wannabees who think success is measured by how much one can become like HOLLYWOOD and suddenly everbody's talents are wasted. 

post #176 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

 

 

 

To use a less funny and intelligent example:  Family Guy.  Seth McFarlane regularly gets away with really tasteless and vulgar shit.  But you don't see these type of thinkpieces dedicated to exposing him as a homophobe.  And does anyone really believe Adam McKay and Will Ferrel are homophobic?

It's shitty, shitty journalism, capitalising on whatever hot button issues are en vogue to get hits.  And speaking for myself,  THAT needs to get called out much more than a crappy comedy.

 

It DOES get called out for.  And it'll get called out more as one type of kneejerk response backlashes against another kneejerk response and more people get a sense of just how toxic the sudden rush to judgement at social-media speed can be.   And then we'll be irritated by some other media trend.

 

And Seth MacFarlane.  The narrative of Seth MacFarlane as a purveyor of cheap, tasteless, vulgar shit is generally accepted.  We already got thinkpieces for his Oscar hosting years ago.  Family Guy is Family Guy.  Nobody really cares about it anymore.  It warrants no attention.  I kinda think that most people (who would care) have already made up their mind about Macfarlane (whether it's true or not).  Until he has something new come out that attracts a lot of attention, there's really no point to accusing him of anything.  There's no story there.

 

I question the reaction of jumping on anyone calling out the humor in Get Hard as indulging in homophobia/gay panic are automatically suggesting that McKay and Ferrel have a homophobic agenda they're trying to push.  Just as much as there may actually be writers trying to suggest that (in order to stand out for attention), it's about as disingenuous as assuming anyone who expresses something 'problematic' about some piece of media is automatically accusing the artist of malicious intent.  Because that would be both sides indulging in binary thinking that reduces our behavior to homophobic and NOT homophobic. 

 

No, I don't believe any sane person would think that McKay and Ferrel are raging homophobes.  I'd say most would simply be accusing them of indulging in...

 

"shitty shitty comedy, capitalizing on whatever cheap fears and negative biases are en vouge to get laughs..."  the act of which CAN be considered implicitly homophobic, and not necessarily the person committing the act.

 

Both this and shitty journalism should be called out on. 

 

That said, I do agree that Blazing Saddles wouldn't be made now as it is.  There's a lot of films from the 70s that I don't think would be made now.  But then there are films we have now that might not have been made in the 70s.  Priorities and tastes shift.  The powder-keg nature of the n-word (yes, I'm someone who is very careful about the use of the term) is as volatile as it ever was, but I think there are nuanced differences to the way people react to it then and now that are way too complex for me to even consider tackling.

 

 

In terms of the discussion of implicit censorship... a culture in which internet film journalism doesn't feel 'free' enough to accuse filmmakers of perpetuating ugly views for the sake of drama/comedy (intentionally or not)... is probably the same culture in which we don't feel as free to let loose our feelings about more concrete social injustices.


Edited by mcnooj82 - 3/26/15 at 11:40pm
post #177 of 4705

I agree Nooj.  I am really just reacting to the reactions.  No free will etc. etc.

 

I just tend to get very wary of critics who bring all of their own baggage with a certain issue into a review of a film.  While yes, no review is ever 100% objective, I do think there needs to at least be an attempt at objectivity.  

post #178 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post
 

 

And my mind immediately went to Animal House, a movie that features one of it's protagonists debating date raping an underage girl (which he doesn't) and later sleeping with her consensually.  I mean, there's no way in hell that you could do that today.  They'd do the twitter equivalent of dragging you in the street and setting you on fire.   Animal House is a classic, a movie that's inspired countless people to get into comedy and produce great works.  Without Animal House's success, we might not have gotten a lot of comedies that we know and love.

Oh, and on the subject of ANIMAL HOUSE?
 

With the shit currently in the news about fraternities (blatant racist bigots AND rapists)... it is absolutely natural that a film like ANIMAL HOUSE wouldn't be made as it is now.  First off, we're in a timeline in which ANIMAL HOUSE exists as a comedy classic (I actually have no opinion of the film... I think I saw it on VHS a long time ago, but I'm not sure)... so it would be very hard for ANIMAL HOUSE to be made as a classic now.

 

It's a product of its time.

 

And we actually got something SOMEWHAT similar in recent years.  A bunch of schlubby slacker nerds engaging in an escalating argument about 'rapey vibes' about Emma Watson.  THIS IS THE END was a hit, but there were definitely discussions about the implicit misogyny of the film and the behind-the-scenes antics of it (Emma Watson is rumored to have left the set in the middle of the production).  Now, I found THIS IS THE END hilarious.  I thought that 'rapey vibes' scene was a pretty intelligent bit of comedy playing with really tricky material.  But I also don't immediately brush off someone's negative opinion of the film for such issues simply because I liked it.  Because, despite the film's intelligence in making these guys the idiots who would argue about something so dumb and drive the only major female character in the film away... in the end it's still a film about a bunch of dudes made in an industry that doesn't treat women well.

 

Now, is it fair to dump the sins of an entire industry/culture onto a single film?  Not at all.  But won't stop us.  Because once in a while, there's a film that really does deserve to be dumped on as a symbol of such sins.  Usually it's really ugly in addition to being awful.

 

 

 

Unrelated to these two comedies, but related to the way in which people really don't listen to each other...

 

I've seen a review of IT FOLLOWS that accused the film of being sexist (since it has a female lead and deals with common teen horror tropes, it kinda can't help it).  The critic was an older woman who got into a Twitter argument (I was told.  I'm not on Twitter) with two male critics who were all "HOW DARE YOU!  To accuse the film of that is so irresponsible!"  And the DISQUS comments below her review... woof.  Some who reacted really badly to someone who would dare say such a thing about a film they enjoyed... some who reacted negatively despite not having seen the film yet...

 

Everyone just getting their snipey comments in.  Nobody really listening.  As most internet discussions go.

 

And it just becomes a circle of reactions to reactions as opposed to the actual content.

 

Nobody is innocent.

 

Nobody is immune.

 

no free will

 

 

(also, you guys should see IT FOLLOWS.  I didn't like the film very much, but lots of people did and it'd make for great discussion in the thread dedicated to it)


Edited by mcnooj82 - 3/27/15 at 12:11am
post #179 of 4705

On the topic of GET HARD...

 

...if you want a more reasonable take on the film, look to former Chewer, agracru, who is a strong critic (despite his love for Pacific Rim ehehehe).

 

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/03/get-hard.html

post #180 of 4705

You see, this is what angers and confuses me so much.  When everyone starts labelling this and that as sexist because of their own perceptions for what is and isn't ok to show on screens.  It ultimately just makes the actual issues seem almost trivial and murky as fuck.  Calling something sexist or homophobic doesn't have the power it's supposed to have because it gets thrown out so often these days.  

 

You see this as well in how people react to the term 'feminism'.  Text book feminism is a good, noble goal I support whole heartedly.  But the term gets co-opted by anyone with an axe to grind with the eponymous patriarchy that it poisons the perception of what feminism actually is.  

 

And at the end of the day, that's my biggest problem.  Because I'm someone who fully believes in treating all people as equals.  I hate seeing these issues treated as outrage and click generators and less as things deserving of actual constructive conversation.  We're never going to get anywhere if people are constantly JUST trying to assign blame the whole time.

post #181 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Unrelated to these two comedies, but related to the way in which people really don't listen to each other...

I've seen a review of IT FOLLOWS that accused the film of being sexist (since it has a female lead and deals with common teen horror tropes, it kinda can't help it).  The critic was an older woman who got into a Twitter argument (I was told.  I'm not on Twitter) with two male critics who were all "HOW DARE YOU!  To accuse the film of that is so irresponsible!"  And the DISQUS comments below her review... woof.  Some who reacted really badly to someone who would dare say such a thing about a film they enjoyed... some who reacted negatively despite not having seen the film yet...

Everyone just getting their snipey comments in.  Nobody really listening.  As most internet discussions go.

Another sign of the times: whenever I see an social media dogpile, I immediately look at the genders of the person in the middle and the crowd shouting at them.
post #182 of 4705
Also, the gender, race and class of the writer compared to the topic they decide to "engage" with.
post #183 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

 

 

And it just becomes a circle of reactions to reactions as opposed to the actual content.

 

 

And Codename, this is the difference between Hitflix's review of Get Hard and that awful article about Patton Oswalt. Hitflix focuses on the content rather than the people involved. And is, otherwise, a well written review. That Patton Oswalt article is just snark with no real content and exemplifies this thread's thesis on outrage culture. The problem is that words like femism, sexism, racism have become such dirty words (and it's the fault of both sides) that they spawn an immediate, outraged, response.

 

Here's the thing: You don't have to agree with it. No one says you have to agree with anything that review says, and you can go on and enjoy Get Hard if you want to. But when a film actively submerges itself in potentially problematic territory, especially with how race is treated on a daily basis, I think a writer should be able to explain "why" exactly it's problematic.

 

Also, criticism with an agenda? That's an opinion in a nutshell, man.

post #184 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post

 Text book feminism is a good, noble goal I support whole heartedly.  But the term gets co-opted by anyone with an axe to grind with the eponymous patriarchy that it poisons the perception of what feminism actually is.

I see what you're getting at. I do. But I think people should be able to interrogate things from as narrow a perspective As they feel comfortable admitting to.

I don't watch Schindler's List and think "Spielberg's coming at this all Jew-heavy! I'd like to see what someone more even-handed could do with this material."
post #185 of 4705
Thread Starter 
I don't think feminism has been co-opted, nor do I think there is such a thing as "textbook feminism". The famous / infamous feminist social critic I have quoted below is a perfect example of this.

There was a further point, but I'm at work and my brain just ran away....
post #186 of 4705
Johnny is articulating better than I am. I guess I'm wondering how "textbook feminism" and "those with an axe to grind against partiarchy" are misaligned.
post #187 of 4705
Watching the Frontline special: Generation Like on Netflix.

It's a horror show.

But even Frontline itself inadvertently ends up pimping Hunger Games over and over because it makes for a good analogy for what it's investigating.

truly no free will


drink ovaltine
post #188 of 4705
You guys should totally check it out.

My favorite part is where it follows the way Ian Somerhalder's social media presence is managed.
post #189 of 4705
Thread Starter 
Speaking of social media presence...http://flavorwire.com/511269/how-azealia-banks-dispensed-with-respectability-politics-and-brought-the-mainstream-to-her-turf

I've heard some of Banks music and some of it is iinteresting, but really, do we really want to be on Azealia Banks' turf? I suppose guys like Sid Vicious became icons based on the way they behaved, with zero filter and respect for decorum, but I *think* it's generally agreed upon that he was a nominally talented junkie whose presence and identity, fostered in part by a svengali figure, upset the right people at the right time. That's basically it.

I say all of that because I cannot reconcile the narrative that people are trying to write for Banks as she goes on Twitter rants, threatening people with physical violence, tossing out homophobic and racist insults, and sending a picture of her genitals to a journalist she was angry with. She just sounds like an idiot to me.

This reminds me of a Camille Paglia interview where she bemoaned the failure of any new, major social critics to arrive on the scene. Western culture really hasn't produced any in a few decades now. Perhaps it's the omnipresent corporeality of what was formerly known as the internal monologue, dispersed ad infinitum across cyberspace that killed social criticism as an art form.
post #190 of 4705

On the topic of social media, appearance, misogyny, etc:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/style/she-sounds-smart-but-look-at-her-hair.html?

post #191 of 4705

I don't know if I find this funny or infuriating. Reminds me of when Marisa Meyer left Google to run Yahoo and people were talking about her being hot and her fucking dress and shoes, for fuck's sake.

post #192 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

On the topic of social media, appearance, misogyny, etc:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/style/she-sounds-smart-but-look-at-her-hair.html?

 

 

I tend to take the approach that anyone SERIOUSLY commenting on a tv talking head's physical appearance* probably has B.O so bad it interferes with cell phone reception. 

 

 

* - at least in the realm of "that person is conventionally attractive"; obviously someone like Limbaugh is a fatass, but that doesn't have anything to do with what he's saying, and t's just shooting fish in a barrel to criticize him for it

post #193 of 4705
A thing that feels to me like it's related to all this, somehow, is the trend with web critics to make everything about not the thing they're critiquing, but their own personal hangups and pet issues, with the subject of critique slotted into some overarching narrative of How I Got This Way as an embodiment of one side or another of some pet issue that it may or may not have much of anything to do with.

For example, I've kept up on-again-off-again with Bob Chipman, formerly of the Escapist, because he had some interesting stuff on the subject of videogame criticism some years back and was running a series with some interesting takes on various nerd-culture topics, but his videos have gotten increasingly difficult to stomach in that time, mainly because his angle has shifted from "let's talk about '80s nerd kitsch as if it were just as deserving of thoughtful analysis as more accepted 'serious' fare" to "let's talk about me and my political views and the contortions I can employ to turn literally any discussion into a rant on how pop-culture property X, Y, or Z is either the embodiment of all evil or a daring, subversive blow struck for the cause of generic snot-nosed-freshman-brand liberal atheist progressivism." To be fair, he always had elements of that, but he used to keep it in check and bring up his personal positions only where relevant, rather than letting them hijack every single piece. But when you're seriously claiming that Ghostbusters is a polemic about the triumph of scientific rationalism over religion, rather than, you know, an '80s comedy blockbuster? (Despite the fact that the movie found its genesis specifically in Dan Aykroyd's interest in the occult?) And you're claiming with a straight face that fucking Gozer is a transparent stand-in for the Abrahamic God because, um, lightning and clouds, despite the fact that A. aside from the Hell-in-the-refrigerator scene, the iconography on display is much closer to Sumerian, as stated in the movie, or pretty much anything else from the Middle East but the Abrahamic religions (especially the quasi-fertility-cult Keymaster/Gatekeeper thing, which has no parallel in them, but vaguely resembles stuff that shows up in plenty of other ancient religions,) B. the Hell-in-the-refrigerator scene along with everything else about Gozer's behavior would put him/her/it closer to some kind of empowered Satan than God (to say nothing of how an androgynous man/woman alien thing is supposed to be representative of an explicitly masculine deity,) and C. the association of the Christian God with lightning bolts and the smiting wherewith is mostly due to Europeans confusing him with that other beardy father deity, Zeus? (And anybody with more than a passing familiarity with Western and Mesopotamian mythology could tell you all that?) Yeah, you're really not talking about Ghostbusters anymore, are you, Bob?

This is, of course, just one example from one random critic on the Internet (and it's largely the specifics and the willful blindness to all the problems with that assertion that stuck in my craw and set me off on this,) but it's a pattern I've seen in a lot of other places on the web: this thing isn't really about what it's about, it's about this pet issue of mine that I want it to be about, and here's how I'm going to slot it into my Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Is it just me?
post #194 of 4705

There's no better way to get me to disengage from a piece on a film than some white writer (which I admit is an automatic assumption I make about most online film critics) , "I watched films like this over and over as a kid while my parents were getting a divorce."

 

 

 

EEEUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

post #195 of 4705
Thread Starter 
I was going to put this in Gossip, but this excerpt from Jon Cryer's memoirs hits on some points that this thread has covered...http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/jon-cryer-reveals-inside-insane-782410
post #196 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

There's no better way to get me to disengage from a piece on a film than some white writer (which I admit is an automatic assumption I make about most online film critics) , "I watched films like this over and over as a kid while my parents were getting a divorce."

 

 

 

EEEUUUUGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Yeah white people and.............divorce? Yeah I don't get your problem. 

post #197 of 4705
Oh nothing specific about those two things other than how common it seems in such reviews along with the blatant appeal to personal history.

Everyone trying to be like Harry Knowles?

Even worse with so much big ticket entertainment set on pushing those nostalgia buttons.

Take into account the stereotype of online movie critics and I end up perceiving a pattern.
post #198 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Oh nothing specific about those two things other than how common it seems in such reviews along with the blatant appeal to personal history.

Everyone trying to be like Harry Knowles?

Even worse with so much big ticket entertainment set on pushing those nostalgia buttons.

Take into account the stereotype of online movie critics and I end up perceiving a pattern.

Yeah I figured and im kind of with you but I just didn't understand why race mattered in that situation.

post #199 of 4705
They're usually white is all. The ones that appeal to that nostalgia.

At least when a film critic is not white, the appeal to nostalgia can have some variance. But they usually don't (at least in the ones I've read).

I've been reading some reactions to Fresh Off The Boat from Asian Americans who look back at their childhoods in a way they usually don't get to. Those have been more interesting.
post #200 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

They're usually white is all. The ones that appeal to that nostalgia.

At least when a film critic is not white, the appeal to nostalgia can have some variance. But they usually don't (at least in the ones I've read).

I've been reading some reactions to Fresh Off The Boat from Asian Americans who look back at their childhoods in a way they usually don't get to. Those have been more interesting.

Alright.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › Western Society, Pop Culture, and the Cacophony of Social Media