|
Post by Casey on Oct 9, 2010 20:17:50 GMT -5
There is no correct message, and "artists" are not above criticism or without responsibility. Of course I can fault an artist for promoting sloppily thought out political or otherwise ~edgy~ art when they know that their audience is a bunch of morons. I don't think that happened here though.
|
|
|
Post by jeremyzero on Oct 9, 2010 20:40:02 GMT -5
But is it fair to say that the artist 'knew their audience is a bunch of morons'? I really doubt the people behind this film thought that stupid people would be their primary audience. Stupid people make up a pretty large percentage of the population of the planet so of course they will see the film, but I don't imagine it was written for them. I certainly hope artists in any medium don't start having to assume that the ignorant and unwashed need to be written to specifically. I don't want to see art dumbed down that way.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 9, 2010 20:43:17 GMT -5
How could they not know that it wouldn't mostly appeal to the average college aged facebook user, who is an idiot? Anyone making big films like this in America knows that their audience is stupid and needs every single detail spelled out for them. But they don't spoon feed all the time, which at times can be awesome and at others can be shitty.
|
|
|
Post by jeremyzero on Oct 9, 2010 20:49:59 GMT -5
I'm sure they were aware that idiots would view it, I just don't think that they should write to the idiots. It cheapens art. It's like if Dickens had to prefix his books with a disclaimer saying "This book, in case you were not aware will deal with the mistreatment of the poor. I think that treating the poor in a bad way is bad". Or Wilde saying "Although I am showing you the actions of various well to do people, I hope you will realize that I present them in a manner meant to be satirical. To show that their concerns are trivial and silly". Art is meant to be interpreted, that some people will interpret things in ways not as originally intended is not the fault of the artist.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 9, 2010 21:42:54 GMT -5
nice use of my boy Oscar.
|
|
silas
Fail Whale
Whack-A-Trope
Posts: 9
|
Post by silas on Oct 10, 2010 22:35:34 GMT -5
I wish I could change his user title but Tanya stripped me of my powers The ban button is tempting, but I think having a new mansplainer around will be kind of funny for a while. I'd love to hear your justification for this. Besides the obvious... "because I can." I don't even know how to reply. That guy clearly took "how to use big words in an argument 101." Rather, how to use big words appropriately in an argument. Is it intimidating? I find it apropos, given the topic. That too big for ya, too? No, that was in reference to the misogyny discussion. And I wasn't mad. I don't really care if someone refuses to see this movie. I just find it a little absurb that people here are making arguments for misogyny in this movie based on observations made out of context by some random critic. See the movie, form your own opinion, and then feel free to bash the producers all you want. But for what it's worth, I don't feel the film comes across as misogynistic at all. This is pretty close to the mark, in my opinion. There is no correct message, and "artists" are not above criticism or without responsibility. Of course I can fault an artist for promoting sloppily thought out political or otherwise ~edgy~ art when they know that their audience is a bunch of morons. I don't think that happened here though. You can fault an artist for whatever you want, really. You can fault anyone for any reason. Before I get some lazy "well, no shit" response to that, take a second and unpack that reply vis-a-vis your reply. If you give an honest response we can get somewhere in this discussion. How could they not know that it wouldn't mostly appeal to the average college aged facebook user, who is an idiot? Anyone making big films like this in America knows that their audience is stupid and needs every single detail spelled out for them. But they don't spoon feed all the time, which at times can be awesome and at others can be shitty. And now we're back to judging quality in art by your terms? I hope you see the disconnect here, and the rather curious (and hilarious) irony going on, especially considering the implication of your last post. ------- Why aren't we complaining about how women are portrayed in, I dunno, Jersey Shore (or probably more correctly, how they are treated)? Why not turn our efforts to anything on tv, in magazines, theatre? I have two distinct issues with this thread: one, some of the initial comments and analysis are masturbatory and narcissistic. You're whining about a movie you haven't even seen on a message board read by the same 15 people who likely agree with you anyway. What's the point? If it's so terrible... do something about it. Instead, the subtext is "look at how enlightened and subversive I am because I can spot out these horrible narratives in popular cinema." Uh... no shit? That's surprising to you? The other issue I have is... if anything is there its rather innocuous (insomuch as it can be) and more likely somewhat germane to the story, given what some other posters have already alluded to (eg, these aren't sympathetic characters and this isn't a feel good story). The representation of women in this film, in my opinion, serve a few purposes - as a foil to the lead characters and an absence of substantial characters. In a sense... it is what it is, given the story. You would rather they invent a strong female lead... for what purpose again? Ultimately making an issue of this is likely counterproductive to feminism writ large: it dilutes the message and provides a knee jerk reaction ("y'all PC types just read into things too much") especially given the era. Do you really think gender issues are getting any better? EVERY magazine and just about every film and television show features skinny, conventionally-beautiful women that play any one of 4 type cast roles. To me this is far more demeaning (and important of an issue) than wasting efforts on The Social Network. The obvious response - it all matters. I suppose it does, and especially on this forum, right?
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 10, 2010 22:58:50 GMT -5
I'm sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? I know I can judge artists for whatever I want, that's exactly what I've been doing in this entire thread. Your issues with me are that I'm bitching on a message board and you've deducted that I am more concerned about this one movie than..."gender issues" in magazines? I think I know "gender issues" aren't getting much better, and I think I'm aware of beauty standards in the media, being a woman and all. But thanks for letting me know that my actions are counter productive to feminism, what would I and feminists (since I don't actually consider myself a feminist) do without men sitting on the sidelines telling us what we're doing wrong.
It does all matter (to me.) If you don't think it does, it's not really my problem and I'm not really going to spend time trying to convince someone to care about something that they don't and you are always free to move along and not reply. It's not like if no one had engaged me I would have continued to bump this thread with COME ON GUYS WHY WON'T YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THIS CLEARLY HORRIBLE ANTI FEMINIST MOVIE (which I never said it was.)
And to be quite honest I've always wanted to just see what happens when someone gets banned. Like, is there an option to send them a message telling them why, do their posts look different from people who voluntarily delete their accounts etc. Plus, no one is impressed by your big words and this board could always be a few assholes lighter.
|
|
|
Post by sbr on Oct 10, 2010 23:00:57 GMT -5
Bored now.
Silas, this meatloaf is both shallow and pedantic.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Oct 10, 2010 23:15:25 GMT -5
...Did my post get deleted?
|
|
|
Post by sbr on Oct 10, 2010 23:19:40 GMT -5
I have no idea. That being said, I'm also in a car right now, so even if I had some way to check, I'd probably fail to remember it. I didn't delete anything, though. I don't think I ever even saw it.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 10, 2010 23:19:42 GMT -5
Did you post in this thread? I responded earlier too and then I clicked back and it wasn't here so I did it again.
|
|
|
Post by sbr on Oct 10, 2010 23:20:42 GMT -5
NOMB might be nomming itself again.
|
|
|
Post by Super Nintendo Chalmers on Oct 10, 2010 23:22:18 GMT -5
Oh, okay. It was just a snarky image macro, nothing worth reposting, haha.
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 10, 2010 23:22:31 GMT -5
we're fucked.
|
|
|
Post by Tommy on Oct 11, 2010 0:33:42 GMT -5
so...how about that awesome rowing race scene?
|
|
|
Post by katherinej on Oct 11, 2010 3:02:14 GMT -5
I have two distinct issues with this thread: one, some of the initial comments and analysis are masturbatory and narcissistic. You're whining about a movie you haven't even seen on a message board read by the same 15 people who likely agree with you anyway. What's the point? If it's so terrible... do something about it. Instead, the subtext is look at how enlightened and subversive I am because I can spot out these horrible narratives in popular cinema." I'm not sure if this is specificly directed at me or not, but I didn't see anything masturbatory or narcissistic about any of the analysis presented on the first page. A question about the treatment of women in this film was posed by Tanya, people answered, and a connection was made between the problems that this film presents that many reviwers have discussed and those shared by a popular television show. No one was trying to pass off their statements as some sort of dissertation on the portrayal of women in the media. What I said on the matter was that I saw that it's a problem that other televison shows have dealt with, and that it can solved by provising more context within the story. I don't get what your issue with that is. The other issue I have is... if anything is there its rather innocuous (insomuch as it can be) and more likely somewhat germane to the story, given what some other posters have already alluded to (eg, these aren't sympathetic characters and this isn't a feel good story). The representation of women in this film, in my opinion, serve a few purposes - as a foil to the lead characters and an absence of substantial characters. In a sense... it is what it is, given the story. You would rather they invent a strong female lead... for what purpose again? I don't think anyone said that they wanted the filmmakers to"invent" a strong female lead, I think we were simply saying that introducing fictional bimbos out of thin air and treating women in general with more contempt than necessary throught the film in order to "foil" the main characters is kind of poor storytelling, especially since many sources are comming out and saying that these events actually transpired without much of that occuring at all. It's lazy and somewhat sleazy, and if it happened with a racial or religious minority in a high profile film that is supposed to be inspired by real events that people would probably be losing their shit over it. Ultimately making an issue of this is likely counterproductive to feminism writ large: it dilutes the message and provides a knee jerk reaction ("y'all PC types just read into things too much") especially given the era. Do you really think gender issues are getting any better? EVERY magazine and just about every film and television show features skinny, conventionally-beautiful women that play any one of 4 type cast roles. To me this is far more demeaning (and important of an issue) than wasting efforts on The Social Network. The obvious response - it all matters. I suppose it does, and especially on this forum, right? The reason that we're not discussing Jersey Shore and Cosmo is because this is a thread about The Social Network. I don't really know what to tell you about that. You could make a thread about the others if you wanted to see discussion on them I guess. Look - I know that I don't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't trying to imply that this movie was terrible for not making a happy, shiny, pro-feminist utopic film for all to see. I was saying that the particular issue that many of the reviews I read covered was bothersome to me, and that the filmmakers could have probably put more effort into either developing the roles that these women played (which were made up anyway) or stuck with the original version of events and found another way to make the film compelling. The problem that the reviwers had with the alleged misogyny in this film is that it is gratuitous and presented without a whole lot of context. You and a few others in this thread seem to be of the opinion that there doesn't need to be any improvement and explanation in this area, and that's fine. Others, myself included, disagree and see it as part of a problem that also affects segments of popular media and should be dealt with. The film might be really entertaining, interesting, thought provoking or any number of positive things. The only thing that I've seen people of a dissenting opinion in this thread say is that it also has issues, and that these issues make it unappealing to them. Also, I'm not posting on this again. This thread got ridiculous, and I apologize if I had a part in it.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Oct 11, 2010 7:25:03 GMT -5
I didn't delete any posts either, haha.
But we haven't had someone be a complete jerkwad to other posters in a while and to be honest I'm not so worried about us being a ~fair and open space~ that much anymore, since the OMB is pretty much back open to everyone now, so yeah, keep being a snarky little fucker when you have like 2 other posts and you'll be banned because really, who's gonna care if it's not fair. This thread was one of the more civil and least srs bsnss feministy discussions we've had here until you came along and I doubt anyone will miss you if you can't reel in the sarcasm, or at least make SOME other contribution to our board other than Thesaurus Troll.
|
|
|
Post by JAN! on Oct 11, 2010 7:25:52 GMT -5
haha, whack-a-trope.
|
|
silas
Fail Whale
Whack-A-Trope
Posts: 9
|
Post by silas on Oct 11, 2010 11:41:55 GMT -5
I was quite pleased with that, myself. Glad someone has a sense of humor. I'm sorry, what the fuck are you talking about? I know I can judge artists for whatever I want, that's exactly what I've been doing in this entire thread. Your issues with me are that I'm bitching on a message board and you've deducted that I am more concerned about this one movie than..."gender issues" in magazines? I think I know "gender issues" aren't getting much better, and I think I'm aware of beauty standards in the media, being a woman and all. But thanks for letting me know that my actions are counter productive to feminism, what would I and feminists (since I don't actually consider myself a feminist) do without men sitting on the sidelines telling us what we're doing wrong. Defaulting to "men can't hold an opinion in a feminist discussion" is kind of old hat and has been largely disqualified in the literature. So no go on that red herring. Can we focus on the discussion now? If you take the position that you seem to be taking in previous posts regarding art/interpretation... it paints you into a corner philosophically. You seem to be dancing around that a bit and I'm just wanting to flesh out where you stand in that regard. It does all matter (to me.) If you don't think it does, it's not really my problem and I'm not really going to spend time trying to convince someone to care about something that they don't and you are always free to move along and not reply. It's not like if no one had engaged me I would have continued to bump this thread with COME ON GUYS WHY WON'T YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THIS CLEARLY HORRIBLE ANTI FEMINIST MOVIE (which I never said it was.) And to be quite honest I've always wanted to just see what happens when someone gets banned. Like, is there an option to send them a message telling them why, do their posts look different from people who voluntarily delete their accounts etc. Plus, no one is impressed by your big words and this board could always be a few assholes lighter. So you're insulted because you and your porous opinion are being challenged and it's not all butt-pats and high fives among friends? To the point you take chagrin with vocabulary and tone instead of the argument (to the point of banning, nonetheless)? Right. I'll leave you to your message board rants. Among friends. I'm sure they're all impressed. Bored now. Silas, this meatloaf is both shallow and pedantic. Clever! I like it.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Oct 11, 2010 11:49:19 GMT -5
find it apropos, given the topic. lololol you're a douche. Why aren't we complaining about how women are portrayed in, I dunno, Jersey Shore (or probably more correctly, how they are treated)? Why not turn our efforts to anything on tv, in magazines, theatre? Oh I don't know, probably because this thread is about a movie and not the Jersey Shore. I do take issue with the way women are portrayed in every medium, don't think I don't just because I'm not bringing it up in this particular thread. Silas, this meatloaf is both shallow and pedantic. hahahah I love it. Defaulting to "men can't hold an opinion in a feminist discussion" is kind of old hat and has been largely disqualified in the literature. So no go on that red herring. oooo *~*largely disqualified in literature*~*. That doesn't mean that women have to listen to men's shitty fucking opinions about feminism and the portrayal of women in media.
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 11, 2010 11:54:08 GMT -5
Did you miss the part where I said I'm not a feminist and therefore don't care about "the literature"? Though I have read a ton of feminist literature and seem to have missed the part where women aren't allowed to dismiss men's opinions of feminism. Something tells me that the author was a nice liberal feminist like Gloria Steinem or Janice Raymond, and if so I really don't care what those racist/transphobic pieces of shit have to say. In any case, I don't define my politics by following the rules laid out by feminists before me. I don't care what men have to say about feminism. I never have, never will. Please move along.
I'm not insulted, I just have no patience for your special brand of dick waving. Telling me that I should be focusing on "more important things" hardly challenges anything and is a classic derailing tactic. I do focus on "more important" things outside of this messageboard, obviously. That's kind of how messageboards work? There is a topic and you talk about it. How would talking about the rate of homelessness for queer youth in the bay area, which is one of my "pet issues," have fit in here? You can still be a good little activist while talking about the problems in inane shit like this movie. Not to mention that social justice is about unraveling patterns of oppression that turn up everywhere, even in seemingly innocuous movies like this one. It may seem small to you, but then again I don't give a fuck what you or any other man thinks about ~feminism~.
I honestly don't think anyone here is impressed by my uncanny ability to "turn" everything into "an issue." In fact, I am very aware that most people here despise it! But I do it anyway because that's what I do.
|
|
silas
Fail Whale
Whack-A-Trope
Posts: 9
|
Post by silas on Oct 11, 2010 12:06:08 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this is specificly directed at me or not, but I didn't see anything masturbatory or narcissistic about any of the analysis presented on the first page. A question about the treatment of women in this film was posed by Tanya, people answered, and a connection was made between the problems that this film presents that many reviwers have discussed and those shared by a popular television show. No one was trying to pass off their statements as some sort of dissertation on the portrayal of women in the media. What I said on the matter was that I saw that it's a problem that other televison shows have dealt with, and that it can solved by provising more context within the story. I don't get what your issue with that is. I say that given the progression of the thread. OP saw a movie, asked for comments about it, and *poof* some awkward criticism ensues. For what purpose? This film is hardly important enough - or the themes therein hardly controversial enough - to make a big deal about it without, in my opinion (and many others) diluting feminist criticism to what amounts to nitpicking. I mean, we could do the same thing with the Lion King or Wall E or anything, but at some the message loses its meaning, especially in an era that seems to be taking backward steps when it comes to female and gender representation. A generation that finds Lady Gaga as an "empowered" female? Please. I suppose I don't yet follow your concluding comments in this passage, so I'll ask if you'd elaborate. I don't think anyone said that they wanted the filmmakers to"invent" a strong female lead, I think we were simply saying that introducing fictional bimbos out of thin air and treating women in general with more contempt than necessary throught the film in order to "foil" the main characters is kind of poor storytelling, especially since many sources are comming out and saying that these events actually transpired without much of that occuring at all. It's lazy and somewhat sleazy, and if it happened with a racial or religious minority in a high profile film that is supposed to be inspired by real events that people would probably be losing their shit over it. I haven't seen that proof yet and I'm not sure it entirely matters giving the emphasis on the leads. The "foil" trope works if you believe the leads are pathetic characters that make pathetic decisions. While "inventing fictional bimbos" may be lazy I'm not sure it's sleazy (it is a convention and storytelling conventions are by nature "lazy") - unless you refuse to believe such people of (arguably) dubious character exist. I do and I don't think it's an indictment upon women in general. The question of representation in popular culture is always an interesting and controversial one, however. The reason that we're not discussing Jersey Shore and Cosmo is because this is a thread about The Social Network. I don't really know what to tell you about that. You could make a thread about the others if you wanted to see discussion on them I guess. Point taken, although I suppose whenever ANY thread pops up we can introduce feminist criticism and see how it sticks, right? Look - I know that I don't speak for anyone else, but I wasn't trying to imply that this movie was terrible for not making a happy, shiny, pro-feminist utopic film for all to see. I was saying that the particular issue that many of the reviews I read covered was bothersome to me, and that the filmmakers could have probably put more effort into either developing the roles that these women played (which were made up anyway) or stuck with the original version of events and found another way to make the film compelling. The problem that the reviwers had with the alleged misogyny in this film is that it is gratuitous and presented without a whole lot of context. You and a few others in this thread seem to be of the opinion that there doesn't need to be any improvement and explanation in this area, and that's fine. Others, myself included, disagree and see it as part of a problem that also affects segments of popular media and should be dealt with. The film might be really entertaining, interesting, thought provoking or any number of positive things. The only thing that I've seen people of a dissenting opinion in this thread say is that it also has issues, and that these issues make it unappealing to them. (For the record I didn't even think the film was that good) Improvement how? I suppose I'm not connecting the dots here. I get the point you're trying to make here, but to me it seems flawed in that it tends to infer certain representations should be barred no matter what unless there is a clear social message used in that representation. I just think that's a rather slippery slope, but it's certainly one I appreciate and endorse given the relative merit or importance of the character. To me your argument seems to turn on the notion that such characters were unnecessarily invented and I'm still not convinced they were, given the history of social networking sites and exploitation - I can think of a number of examples, but there is an allusion to Tila Tequila and a number of grossly misogynistic situations which women are objectified unbeknownst to them because of the "anonymity" of the internet - which seems to be a subtle theme here with the main characters. Again, they don't seem to be at all sympathetic characters here, but rather, complete ass hats. Given all of this, I just think efforts are better placed elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Oct 11, 2010 12:06:59 GMT -5
will you just fuck off? good lord.
|
|
silas
Fail Whale
Whack-A-Trope
Posts: 9
|
Post by silas on Oct 11, 2010 12:10:15 GMT -5
"I don't give a fuck what you think or what you think of me, but I spend all of my energy giving a fuck about what other people think and criticizing how they think."
Right. So why the fuck should anyone else give a fuck what you think (especially dick waving misogynists, racists, or other bigots)?
Seems we can all bury our heads in the sand not giving a fuck what each other thinks and just live and let live...
|
|
|
Post by Casey on Oct 11, 2010 12:13:03 GMT -5
We know the characters weren't invented. What we're opposed to is the kind of REAL LIFE SHITTY TREATMENT OF WOMEN being continually shown without ANY criticism. It's disgusting and it sustains that kind of violence.
Where, exactly, would our efforts be put to better use? Please enlighten us. I really don't know why you keep falling back on this, it's weak and lazy and has been pointed out to you to be fallacious (oooh, like them big words?)
EDIT: haha, alright. I don't know why you're so butthurt that I don't care what an asshole on a message board has to say (or that you think that this is what I spend "all of my time" doing) but it is very funny that you think that there is anything to infer there about my offline politics.
|
|
|
Post by kr on Oct 11, 2010 12:14:04 GMT -5
I don't really give a fuck where he thinks my efforts should be put to use.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Oct 11, 2010 12:16:04 GMT -5
Is this the only thread you've read on our board? We have a 200+ page thread that's like 75% "feminist critique" of everything under the sun. Plus it leaks over into countless other discussions. It's not like we just decided to spend all our free time on bashing this movie because we don't like it. There's no misplaced effort here. We rub our effort all over everything. Sometimes each other.
|
|
|
Post by Clit Eastwood on Oct 11, 2010 14:00:20 GMT -5
Casey said fallacious. It reminds me of fellatio. Hilarity!
|
|
|
Post by Nick Taxidermy on Oct 11, 2010 14:20:33 GMT -5
Sials, i don't like The Lion King because it supports Patriarchal monarchism. yeah, you can do this for any movie. they're doing it for this one. get used to it.
|
|
|
Post by Tanya on Oct 11, 2010 14:26:30 GMT -5
I always kind of wondered why the lionesses, even though they're the ones who know how to hunt shit, just let the one dude run them into the ground and didn't do anything until another dude showed up. You have all the power, and Scar was a wussy lion anyway. Eat him.
|
|