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 87

post #4301 of 4705
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

I think there's value in believing the victim

 

I'm using this particular story as a jumping off point, so my point doesn't necessarily have anything to do with rape. However, I'm quoting this piece b/c it's one of my least favorite phrases in the last several years in that contains a very clear logical fallacy. It immediately assumes that there is a victim, therefore rendering the necessity of "belief" invalid. In the case I noted, unless something else comes out of it, we can reasonably assume that there is no victim - except for maybe the "friend" whom she seemed more than ready to screw over when her story began to fall apart.

 

As for what stories need to be covered or not, I can't really dictate that, but as with the story with the alleged racist attack on the bus (I'll try to find it later to further my point), the silence after the fact is deafening. 

 

Clearly, many of us think that the revelation of the massive extent of the NSA's spying activities was important enough that it sort of neutralized any negative impact it might have had on other operations, and I think that should go for all stories that cover things that might be quite uncomfortable to talk about. 

 

For example, you don't have to spin the Michigan story on a left-leaning site, simply make it part of a bigger discussion about reasonable expectations of evidence and the damage these incidents can do to real victims should they get a lot of attention. You don't solve anything by ignoring the bits you don't like. That's not how this should work.

 

Breitbart will cover it because they want to shutdown discussion and deny it ever needed to be had in the first place, any reputable left-leaning publication should, I believe, take it head on as part of said discussion. 

post #4302 of 4705

A friend of yours comes to you. They've been beaten up. They tell you that someone close to you has raped them. 

 

Do you believe them? What do you do? 

 

This isn't me being trolling, by the way. I'm genuinely curious to know the answer.

post #4303 of 4705

Also, Emily Yoffe of Slate made her bones covering false rape accusations, so your assertion that this stuff isn't being talked about in left-leaning publications is a little unfounded: 
 

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html 

post #4304 of 4705
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

A friend of yours comes to you. They've been beaten up. They tell you that someone close to you has raped them. 

 

Do you believe them? What do you do? 

 

This isn't me being trolling, by the way. I'm genuinely curious to know the answer.

 

I believe them.

 

A female acquaintance, someone you know casually, says that a good male friend of yours who you've known for years raped her. This is not something you would have ever imagined that he could do and she's not injured in any way. 

 

Do you believe her?

 

This shit is situational. 

 

Edit: By the by, I have heard these stories from female friends and have had no trouble believing them, but the stories they told happened in the distant past. I have yet to be faced with having a friend of mine accused of something like that. 

post #4305 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post

 

A female acquaintance, someone you know casually, says that a good male friend of yours who you've known for years raped her. This is not something you would have ever imagined that he could do. 

 

Do you believe her?

 

I believe her. 

 

You're right - this is situational. 

 

Anyway, I appreciate you engaging me on this. 

post #4306 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

 

I'm using this particular story as a jumping off point, so my point doesn't necessarily have anything to do with rape. However, I'm quoting this piece b/c it's one of my least favorite phrases in the last several years in that contains a very clear logical fallacy. It immediately assumes that there is a victim, therefore rendering the necessity of "belief" invalid. In the case I noted, unless something else comes out of it, we can reasonably assume that there is no victim - except for maybe the "friend" whom she seemed more than ready to screw over when her story began to fall apart.

 

As for what stories need to be covered or not, I can't really dictate that, but as with the story with the alleged racist attack on the bus (I'll try to find it later to further my point), the silence after the fact is deafening. 

The Albany thing? Yeah that one was a doozy. 

post #4307 of 4705

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

I believe her. 

 

You're right - this is situational. 

 

Anyway, I appreciate you engaging me on this. 


What steps do you take against your good male friend?

 

Rape is such a fucked up crime. In many/most cases you can't prove the actual crime happened until you prove someone is guilty. You can prove robbery happened, or murder, without a perpetrator. Not so with rape.

post #4308 of 4705
Thread Starter 

Now I wish that I hadn't used that specific example, but whatever, this thread is built to jump around.

 

Edit: This tangent reminds me of Paul Bettany catching shit for defending the character of his friend, Johnny Depp, when Amber Heard (whom Bettany said nothing about) accused him of domestic abuse. I don't want to live in a world where you are afraid the defend the character and reputation of your friend when you believe that it is being impugned, because of what people who don't know you or them might say. Like I said in that thread, I'd rather defend a friend and be wrong about it, then not do it and possibly kill a good relationship if that person is found to have been falsely accused. 

 

What are you about if you're not about backing up a friend within good reason? That's what Bettany did. He proved he was about something. The accusation? Went nowhere.

post #4309 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin's Dad View Post
 

 


What steps do you take against your good male friend?

 

Rape is such a fucked up crime. In many/most cases you can't prove the actual crime happened until you prove someone is guilty. You can prove robbery happened, or murder, without a perpetrator. Not so with rape.

 

That's why taking statements is a crucial thing. And if someone is lying, those statements tend to fluctuate and warp. 

post #4310 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anakin's Dad View Post

 

What steps do you take against your good male friend?

 

I encourage the person who told me to report it/make a statement to the police, while at the same time asking my friend for his side of the story. I try and approach both parties with as much generosity of spirit as possible. Ultimately, it depends on my male friend's reaction and whether or not I believe him.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

 

That's why taking statements is a crucial thing. And if someone is lying, those statements tend to fluctuate and warp. 

 

Except there's been evidence and documented case study about how police officers tend to discount statements based on how a victim reacts or doesn't react. You saw this with Emma Sulkowitz, the Columbia artist, who faced a tremendous amount of doubt and skepticism because she texted her attacker/was friendly with him (something that is common based on how we process trauma). Or the studies that have done that have illustrated how a person suffering a traumatic experience remembers things differently, or forgets things, which can be interpreted as "fluctuating and warping" when it comes to later statements. The problem is that so many police departments and courts aren't trained well to respond to all of those things and so what is nuanced becomes reduced to a binary. 

 

I think I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread, but I ultimately agree with Johnny that we need to be discussing cases of falsely accused rape (as in the Slate piece I linked, which itself is controversial) - but we also need to recognize that those are few and far between. I think I posted these numbers earlier in the thread, but there's an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that (broadly) 999 times out of 1,000 a rape victim is telling the truth, which is why I tend to rely on "believe the victim." 

 

The problem becomes that, for reasons above and more, rape and sexual assault victims feel like they can't get a fair shake in the halls of justice, so they take them to the court of social media, and lives get ruined in the process.

post #4311 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

Now I wish that I hadn't used that specific example, but whatever, this thread is built to jump around.

 

Edit: This tangent reminds me of Paul Bettany catching shit for defending the character of his friend, Johnny Depp, when Amber Heard (whom Bettany said nothing about) accused him of domestic abuse. I don't want to live in a world where you are afraid the defend the character and reputation of your friend when you believe that it is being impugned, because of what people who don't know you or them might say. Like I said in that thread, I'd rather defend a friend and be wrong about it, then not do it and possibly kill a good relationship if that person is found to have been falsely accused. 

 

What are you about if you're not about backing up a friend within good reason? That's what Bettany did. He proved he was about something. The accusation? Went nowhere.

 

Replace "friend" with "family member" and it becomes even more obvious.

post #4312 of 4705

The Bettany/Depp thing becomes even more complicated when it's the court of public opinion and it's celebrities that we're talking about, and you're not only forced into making the decision I described above as a private citizen, but you're forced to address it as a figure/stick up for someone. Do I fault Bettany for defending Depp? No. You're right that he stuck up for his friend and made the decision to stand for something. He spoke to the man's character as he understood it. I can understand and sympathize with that, even while disliking Johnny Depp and thinking he has a troubling history of "tempestous relationships." 

 

Nuance!!!

post #4313 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

All of these publications, Left or Right, tend to do the same shit to different (and not equal) degrees, and it is bothersome to me b/c it further demonstrates how deeply fucked we are in terms of how information is delivered to us. Right-wing sites either ignore stories that might support a narrative banged about on the Left, or they actively fudge the facts of that story depending on how big it is and how fearful they are that it might reflect poorly on their own narrative.

 

Who considers what 'news' and why is always interesting. It always comes down to what bigger picture the outlet is constructing. Most of the time you can live inside an outlet's bigger picture without even noticing until you get cases like this where the coverage, or lack of, reveals some inconsistency that makes you think twice.

 

These shows up in non-partisan situations as well. Like a few times this year I've had my phone's newsflashes go off with reports of a vehicle hitting pedestrians in some western city, to which I'd have that all too familiar "oh shit" sinking feeling in the stomach (aka "That 2016 Feeling"). But then it emerges that it was just an accident and the stories quietly disappear. No longer news! But it's not like those things didn't happen, and that it wasn't just as bad for the people directly affected. All that changed is the media's collective decision to no longer present it to us as important.

 

What's the bigger picture story presented by a false rape accusation? "Women lie about being raped"? No wonder left leaning outlets don't want to push that message. For right leaning outlets the bigger picture message is "here's the story the dishonest left media don't want you to see!" and... well, sometimes just "women lie about being raped".

 

But the fact is whoever your ideological enemies are, they're probably going to be right a certain amount of the time, and if your side isn't covering that you're probably going to end up with a wonky perception of what's going on. I increasingly feel like lurching back and forth across a range of ideologies with your media intake is the only way to stay sane.

post #4314 of 4705

post #4315 of 4705
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

 

Replace "friend" with "family member" and it becomes even more obvious.

 

This is true. I have three older brothers and I wouldn't entertain any accusations against them. If something were to happen and it came to light that either of them maybe did do something like that? Then I'd take the hit it and help them see their way through as best I could, but an immediate response of: "Did you do that shit?"

 

Nah. Not happening.

post #4316 of 4705

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

The Bettany/Depp thing becomes even more complicated when it's the court of public opinion and it's celebrities that we're talking about, and you're not only forced into making the decision I described above as a private citizen, but you're forced to address it as a figure/stick up for someone. Do I fault Bettany for defending Depp? No. You're right that he stuck up for his friend and made the decision to stand for something. He spoke to the man's character as he understood it. I can understand and sympathize with that, even while disliking Johnny Depp and thinking he has a troubling history of "tempestous relationships." 

 

Nuance!!!

'troubling history of tempestuous relationships?'....Nuance!!

 

So maybe I am misreading this part, but phrases like this really bother me. Accusing someone of being a racist, misogynist or some other odious 'ist' is pretty damn serious. You can impact people's personal life and professional life quite strongly and you need no proof at all. The person remains smeared and no proof need ever come out, to call this nuance seems disingenuous.

post #4317 of 4705

Kind of relates to what's been discussed previously but I stumbled on a conversation on facebook (god, why do I bother?) where someone asked when if ever is it appropriate to initiate intimate contact with a person without permission?  I've been on alot of dates, and I've never once asked permission for anything.  Whatever happened seemed to unfold organically and naturally, with me leading the way, but I was never aggressive about anything, just not terrible at reading body language and eye contact, and slowly getting closer.  Alot of the women in the discussion seemed to want guys to ask permission to do just about anything, including kiss.  Now I'm sitting here wondering if I've been engaging in some kind of assault without realizing it.  

 

It feels like such a triggered scenario now where literally every facet of human behavior becomes a boundary that needs written consent.  Kissing I can actually understand, because that's more serious, but everything else?.... putting your arm around a person (when you feel you've "earned" it so to speak), or touching their skin or hair, or taking their hand always seemed a natural behavioral thing people just kind of know when to do which leads to intimacy.  I always felt asking to do things to be absolute mood killers.  Again, I've never had a single situation where I put a move on a girl and it was obvious that it was unwarranted and it was always reciprocated, or she would kind of pull away a bit to let me know it wasn't time.  If I don't feel anything, I don't act.  And it's always seemed to work out.  Are we in new territory here or has this always been a thing women have just silently been fuming about and not telling anybody?

post #4318 of 4705

I think most people, Ambler, follow the same sort of psychic intuition you follow. The women who have closed off that aspect are usually just extreme and fearful. 

post #4319 of 4705
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post
 

Kind of relates to what's been discussed previously but I stumbled on a conversation on facebook (god, why do I bother?) where someone asked when if ever is it appropriate to initiate intimate contact with a person without permission?  I've been on alot of dates, and I've never once asked permission for anything.  Whatever happened seemed to unfold organically and naturally, with me leading the way, but I was never aggressive about anything, just not terrible at reading body language and eye contact, and slowly getting closer.  Alot of the women in the discussion seemed to want guys to ask permission to do just about anything, including kiss.  Now I'm sitting here wondering if I've been engaging in some kind of assault without realizing it.  

 

It feels like such a triggered scenario now where literally every facet of human behavior becomes a boundary that needs written consent.  Kissing I can actually understand, because that's more serious, but everything else?.... putting your arm around a person (when you feel you've "earned" it so to speak), or touching their skin or hair, or taking their hand always seemed a natural behavioral thing people just kind of know when to do which leads to intimacy.  I always felt asking to do things to be absolute mood killers.  Again, I've never had a single situation where I put a move on a girl and it was obvious that it was unwarranted and it was always reciprocated, or she would kind of pull away a bit to let me know it wasn't time.  If I don't feel anything, I don't act.  And it's always seemed to work out.  Are we in new territory here or has this always been a thing women have just silently been fuming about and not telling anybody?

 

I've seen the nebulous idea of strict verbal consent come up and since actual human beings don't fuck like that, it's just some idea that exists amongst a certain subset of people on the internet. I get what's behind these ideas, but they don't really occupy any recognizable reality. My rule is this: If you're with someone and things look to be going that way and they show some sign of hesitation, then ask if they are okay. If they physically or verbally indicate apprehension, then sure, maybe try to save it somehow (because, hey, sex is fun and maybe it's just a weird moment that both of you can move past), but if that doesn't seem to work, then drop that shit immediately and call it a night. 

 

I've yet to face this, but that seems more reasonable and certainly more natural than: "Would you like to have sex now?" or whatever it is that these people who hold these ideas are expecting. 

post #4320 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny View Post
 

 

I've seen the nebulous idea of strict verbal consent come up and since actual human beings don't fuck like that, it's just some idea that exists amongst a certain subset of people on the internet. I get what's behind these ideas, but they don't really occupy any recognizable reality. My rule is this: If you're with someone and things look to be going that way and they show some sign of hesitation, then ask if they are okay. If they physically or verbally indicate apprehension, then sure, maybe try to save it somehow (because, hey, sex is fun and maybe it's just a weird moment that both of you can move past), but if that doesn't seem to work, then drop that shit immediately and call it a night. 

 

I've yet to face this, but that seems more reasonable and certainly more natural than: "Would you like to have sex now?" or whatever it is that these people who hold these ideas are expecting. 

 

Like I said, never had a problem with it.  I can usually tell if the other person isn't feeling it, so to speak, and I just act appropriately.  Usually by asking for the check.  

 

I really don't know what reality those people live in.  And I honestly doubt what they believe would actually work for them if put into practice.  A guy constantly asking them to do things would probably get shafted for being too much of a push over.  

post #4321 of 4705
Thread Starter 

It's a reaction/overreaction to sexual assault and the uncomfortable shit that can happen during consensual sex when one person has perhaps misread what the other would be into or what have you. There's obviously some stuff that you're going to want to ask before you do it and I do, and then there's stuff I've been asked to do and I wasn't really feeling it at all. That's how it works.  

 

Applying actual rules and regulations to sex is doomed to fail.

post #4322 of 4705
post #4323 of 4705
And there it is.
post #4324 of 4705
This will end well.
post #4325 of 4705

Oh man shes going to get so much work now with everyone's support.

post #4326 of 4705
it's not as if she was booking the projects she pursued before

I'm all for it!

NOTHING FOR FREE

BUUUUURN IT DOWN
post #4327 of 4705

Interesting read with many good points, but I think it goes a bit far. 

 

"Imagine, if you will, the discomfort many would feel if a woman writer-director made Moby Dick into a film, or got the green light to write and direct a biopic of George Washington, Joe DiMaggio, Chuck Yeager, or even Donald Trump. Why is this less valid than, say, Cary Fukunaga making Jane Eyre or directing Michael Apted Coal Miner’s Daughter, or What’s Love Got to Do With It being directed by Brian Gibson (a white Englishman)?"

 

So my reaction is that people would be wrong to voice discomfort with a female or minority making a movie about these subjects, so this ends up looking hypocritical when taken as a whole. If Fukunaga makes a good movie about Jane Eyre, then there really should not be a problem.

 

Basically the heart of this argument is that they don't want white males making so many movies, and I get that. All the angles really boil down to arguing for a more diverse body of professionals to make movies, shows, whatever. But this culture of outrage and victimhood is not a good look for anyone. For someone who grew up in an era where you were defined by your accomplishment rather than your ability to articulate your discomfort, it is very hard to take people seriously. 

 

Long story short, people will repeat behaviors that are rewarded. If you reward outrage, you will get more outrage. Which is where I think we are right now. 

post #4328 of 4705
Also literally nobody would give a fuck if a woman wrote and directed any of those things. Well, aside from a Trump biopic, but that's simply because Trumplings have skin just as thin as their god-emperor's.
post #4329 of 4705
these days, I'm sure someone would!
post #4330 of 4705

Would a female directed Moby Dick be different? If Michelle MacLaren or Katheryn Bigelow decided they wanted to do it what looks or sounds different?

 

Maybe as a white male who lives in a mostly Red Bible belt state, but has an English degree, I am sensitive enough to think it wouldn't change, but doltish enough to not realize how it would be different. 

post #4331 of 4705
I'm sitting here trying to even think of what might be different about Moby Dick merely because a woman directed it (which woman? Who knows! Evidently it doesn't matter enough for the author to decide! They're all fungible, apparently!) and I got nothing. Granted, part of that's because I only really remember the Cliff Notes from Moby Dick, but then that's probably just as true of 99% of the hypothetical audience.
post #4332 of 4705
I'm tired of people whining and shouting that they "have a voice!"

Then show us already. Go fucking direct it.
post #4333 of 4705

WARNING: MOBY DICK NERDERY AHEAD

That's the one example I take issue with in her piece. Moby-Dick is about so many things that are hung on the main, "action movie, hunt the whale" narrative, that literally anyone could direct it and it'd be interesting. One of the things IN THE HEART OF THE SEA (which isn't quite an adaptation) gets right is the focus on the process of whaling, which is just one aspect of the book.

 

As mentioned, Bigelow and MacLaren to an extent are great at shooting action, and telling stories about masculinity and men under pressure. It's also something where the absence of women is a commentary on women itself, etc., kind of how the absence of slaves in THE BEGUILED by Coppola turns out to be a commentary on race in addition to gender.

 

You could also have someone like Bill Condon or Todd Haynes (to name a couple who I'd like to see attack it) do an adaptation focusing on the novel's queer aspects - particularly since Melville himself was queer. Lee Daniels would be an interesting choice if you wanted to attack the intersectionality of the novel - consider that the "big bad" of the story is defined primarily by its whiteness - or, if you did want to focus on the race angle of the piece, someone like Anthony Hemingway or Ryan Coogler or Barry Jenkins or Dee Rees. Coogler would be fascinating in his ability to combine bracing action with a political subtext.

 

If you just wanted to focus on the lyrical, almost surreal, shifting nature of the work, Terrence Malick would work. I'd also see someone like Mia Hansen-Love take a whack at it.

 

And, of course, if you wanted to focus on the deep spirituality and Christianity of the novel, you'd get Kirk Cameron. 

post #4334 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post

 

And, of course, if you wanted to focus on the deep spirituality and Christianity of the novel, you'd get Kirk Cameron. 

No you wouldn't.

post #4335 of 4705
Moby Whale - a film by Kirk Cameron
post #4336 of 4705

I mean it, not fucking thing spiritual about him.

post #4337 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I'm tired of people whining and shouting that they "have a voice!"
 

eheheh I'm sure you are

post #4338 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I'm tired of people whining and shouting that they "have a voice!"

Then show us already. Go fucking direct it.
I mean, to be fair, it's not like J. Random Woman Filmmaker can just up and put together a major blockbuster off what she finds between the couch cushions, and I get the frustration over the way that "opportunity" tends to skew towards white dudes in that regard. But when you're straight-up telling people that they're not allowed to tell this or that story because of their sex and ethnicity? Um, no, fuck off, you are literally exemplifying exactly the goddamn thing you're complaining about in reverse.
post #4339 of 4705

I know it might shock people, but I actually agree with commodore (and I posted the article because I knew it would provoke discussion). I don't think you should straight up tell people that they're not allowed to tell this story or that story. As I tried to point out with the Moby-Dick thing, any story can be interesting depending on the particular angle you approach it with, and who is choosing to tell that story.

 

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "hey, maybe we should make sure that the people telling these stories are diverse and reflective of the population as a whole" or asking "hey, this project about a woman we're considering a man for, are there any women who might be good at this?" 

post #4340 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

I'm tired of people whining and shouting that they "have a voice!"

Then show us already. Go fucking direct it.

 

You write this as if "they" have equal access and opportunity to make these films. "They" don't. That's the whole point.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

WARNING: MOBY DICK NERDERY AHEAD

 

And, of course, if you wanted to focus on the deep spirituality and Christianity of the novel, you'd get Kirk Cameron. 

 

As noted above, there's nothing deep, spiritual, or Christian about Kirk Cameron.

post #4341 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by commodorejohn View Post


I mean, to be fair, it's not like J. Random Woman Filmmaker can just up and put together a major blockbuster off what she finds between the couch cushions

 

Most filmmakers can't just up and put together a major blockbuster. I'm a white male filmmaker. Do you see people throwing money at my face? But if you feel strongly about any story, do what it's in your wheel house of possibilities and go out and make it. The entitlement isn't going to land you gigs. 

post #4342 of 4705

Sigh.

 

Really, Carnotaur?

post #4343 of 4705
Thread Starter 

One of my favorite comedies in the last ten years is Lynn Shelton's Hump Day (with Mark Duplass and Josh Leonard), a movie that is, at its heart, about male relationships. Now, there might be a mitigating factor in that the film was rather heavily improvised, but I think it nails quite a bit about being a guy in your 30's, facing the specter of growing up and having a family, but still having this nagging connection to your early 20's and intellectualizing the pursuit of really dumb shit in an attempt to alleviate your anxiety.

 

When I saw it back in 2009-2010, it never crossed my mind to question if the gender of the director was at all an issue in its ability to tell the story it wanted to tell. I laughed a lot, recognized a bit of myself in it, and it felt right to me and that's all that mattered.

 

I suspect that a different perspective did nothing but help it.

post #4344 of 4705

She does seem to be arguing on the side of more biopic style pieces. So the Hidden Figures and so forth, which tell women's stories. I guess she is arguing that there is a certain amount of perspective and nuance lost in the translation of a male writer/director telling the direct story of a woman.

 

I'm curious what film she was upset about that got produced by a powerful male write/director. The most famous woman in America at the time. Joy?

post #4345 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

Sigh.

 

Really, Carnotaur?

 

 

eheheheh

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boone Daniels View Post
 

 

 

That being said, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "hey, maybe we should make sure that the people telling these stories are diverse and reflective of the population as a whole" or asking "hey, this project about a woman we're considering a man for, are there any women who might be good at this?" 

 

that's pretty much how I took in the piece

 

it's the writing of someone who knows that it's an extreme position that's not gonna happen

 

I wouldn't say it's satirical, but it's an expression of the frustration of the state of things despite progress that's made in terms of the content represented in movies, but not as much the people behind it.

post #4346 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

eheheh I'm sure you are

 

You attempting to warp what I said, noojie?

post #4347 of 4705
Nooj can't hear you over the sound of pulling himself up by his bootstraps, Carno. Apparently it's quite a noisy process.
post #4348 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by flint View Post
 

She does seem to be arguing on the side of more biopic style pieces. So the Hidden Figures and so forth, which tell women's stories. I guess she is arguing that there is a certain amount of perspective and nuance lost in the translation of a male writer/director telling the direct story of a woman.

 

I'm curious what film she was upset about that got produced by a powerful male write/director. The most famous woman in America at the time. Joy?

 

 

I'm also wondering what film she was referring to.  I was confused at first because I thought I missed something when she didn't mention the specifics.

 

On the topic of HIDDEN FIGURES (a pleasant nice movie), I can't get over how many concessions the movie gave to 'white audiences' through Kevin COMPOSITEstner smashing racism with a crowbar.  It feels like SUCH a thing the WHITE MALE filmmaker (the screenwriter was a white woman) would contrive in adapting the story of the black women of NASA.

 

And that director, Ted Melfi... "LOOK.  WHITE PEOPLE DID GOOD THINGS.  BLACK PEOPLE DID GOOD THINGS.  WHO CARES WHO DID THE GOOD THINGS???"

 

 

So with that in mind, I'm all for the sentiment of the link to the point that we'll see a future where (as Johnny indicated) that the gender/race/sexuality of the director/writer only matters in terms of bringing diverse and nuanced POVs of quality when telling any kind of story.

post #4349 of 4705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Slim View Post

Nooj can't hear you over the sound of pulling himself up by his bootstraps, Carno. Apparently it's quite a noisy process.

 

MY VOICE!!!

 

MY VOICE!!!

post #4350 of 4705

He should get new ones. Like, ones that aren't rotting. 

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