MovieChat Forums > Brie Larson Discussion > Reposted from Captain Marvel: "My confus...

Reposted from Captain Marvel: "My confusion about raging antifeminist incels"


I had seen so much complaining that Brie Larson made racist sexist comments and that white men were offended and on and on... Obviously. Claims of boycotts of this movie, etc.

So then I finally saw a link a few weeks ago to her supposedly infamous speech, even the Youtube video had "HER OWN WORDS" and comments below calling her racist and sexist.

I watched the entire video and never in "HER OWN WORDS" did she say anything sexist or racist. She spoke about the disparity between a movie's target demographic, and the demographics that make up the majority of critics. She spoke about how that can impact indie films in particular, etc.

She spoke in terms of pure marketing, demographics, cultural familiarity in terms of what readers tend to look for, etc.

I give a great correlation: It's like kids' movies being reviewed by adults. Wouldn't you assume that a kid might be interested in the reaction of similarly-aged peers instead of professional adult critics?

Same thing with gender and cultural differences.

Never did she say that Captain Marvel was "not for white men" yet all these reactionary snowflake incels kept saying "Well if white men aren't welcome then we're not showing up blah blah blah."

So my confusion is thus:
1. Do these guys just go by the headlines, and the Youtube uploader knows this, so they cater to that, knowing the incels will not watch the entire video?

2. Do these guys just fail to comprehend ideas like marketing and demographics?

3. Was Brie simply speaking at a level a bit too high for some people?


I don't get the knee-JERK reaction to her very normal and understandable speech.

Thanks

reply

[deleted]

Because he likes to sniff his own excrement, and wants to spread it around to see if others enjoy it as well (they don't, obviously).

reply

SJWs are obsessed with sex. They can't stop talking about 'incels', 'virgins', 'rape', 'sexual harassment', and all that stuff.

It's quite like those old preachers in the Church that were obsessed with sex. That generation of preachers are retired or dead, but we have SJWs to replace them :-)

reply

So what do YOU want to talk about? What are Social Justice Worriers anyway? Trying to bring attention to the Ills of Society? Would you rather we all ignore?

And this whole SJW thing has gotten to be absurd and dishonest. People wanting to share their feelings doesn't mean they are part of a nation wide agenda. Another repube attempt attacking their superior opponent's stance. Scurrilous garbage that these pigs eat at the trough in.

reply

Let's change 'SJW' into 'Televangelist' in your commentary, and you can see how it works flawlessly.

What fits what I said, actually. SJW are the new preachers.

"So what do YOU want to talk about? What are Televangelists anyway? Trying to bring attention to the Ills of Society? Would you rather we all ignore?

And this whole Televangelist thing has gotten to be absurd and dishonest. People wanting to share their feelings doesn't mean they are part of a nation wide agenda. Another repube attempt attacking their superior opponent's stance. Scurrilous garbage that these pigs eat at the trough in.
"

reply

Everyone knows what Brie meant, the subject has been beaten to the death. YouTubers are only using these hate Brie Larson videos for clicks and it’s working for them. Although if Brie was really hated that much than Captain Marvel wouldn’t have made a billion.

reply

Or, and I am just saying here because I saw CM three times, that perhaps if Brie was liked more it might have made 1.5 billion

reply

Is that so?

Bahahahaha!

So a billion dollar-earning Marvel origin film that, very few analysts were even convinced had the potential of making more than $750 million at the box office, could’ve made $1.5 billion... talk about unprecedented for a franchise origin story... if not for the backwards and misinformation spreading audience (modern Hollywood-hating audience in general) that hates Brie? I mean, nothing the delusional whincel crowd says should surprise anyone anymore... but WOW does this crowd love to convince themselves that they actually accomplished something.

This won’t matter to said whincels, but it is a fact (facts are evil!) that this movie way overperformed and ultimately became one of the leggiest superhero/blockbusters ever (for what it’s worth, it had great audience scores on troll-proof outlets). But yup, it still could’ve made $500 million more at the BO if only Brie hadn’t offended a certain hateful audience that curses most things Hollywood nowadays. Yeah, she truly lost a big chunk of lovely movie goers.


Dudes... I can’t even XD

reply

Here is a fact: if someone does not see a movie then that movies does not get any money from them. My point is that if people decided to not see the film for any reason, valid or not, then that film does not get that money.

Perhaps it might not have made .5 billion more, I am not a box office predictor (then again they are wrong to), but it would have made more.

The fact that the movie outperformed its predictions is irrelevant.

reply

As a kid, I read film reviews, and guess what, they were all written by adults, intelligent, educated adults who understood cinema.

I've since seen reviews by my contemporaries at that age (like this one: https://youtu.be/Yl1l81__o_A), and I've got to say, thank goodness I listened to adults and not whiny, ill-informed brats who couldn't string two coherent sentences together.

By the way, the one critic whose views I did most appreciate and hold in high regard as a 12-year-old kid from the UK was Pauline Kael, a sixtysomething woman from New York.

But according to people like Brie and you, I should only be interested in what other white men my own age think.

Wow! You two really are a pair of close-minded, solopsistic bigots, aren't you?

You're no better than a hardline alt-right Trump supporter who stays in their echo chamber, and only listens to people who share the exact same views and life experiences.

Also, if YouTube is engaging in clickbaiting and shit-stirring, perhaps you should take the matter up with this multi-million dollar platform, rather than blaming its exploited audience/victims.

reply

"But according to people like Brie and you, I should only be interested in what other white men my own age think."

Thats not at all what Brie said, particularly the "should" element... thus your reply fits what I described in this topic.

So I ask you: Did you listen to Brie's opinion and simply didnt "get it," or are you reassembling a notion of her words, Frankenstein style, from the reactions of others?

reply

Did you, or did you not, say the following "I give a great correlation: It's like a kids movie being reviewed by adults.
Wouldn't you assume that a kid might be interested in the reaction of similarly-aged peers instead of professional adult critics?"

To which my answer, speaking as someone who was a kid, is 'no'.

I'm more interested in people who know what they're talking about irrespective of whether or not they share the same age, gender, race or sexuality as me. But then again, maybe it's because I'm not as close-minded and conservative as some of you...

Also, the nice thing about film criticism is that thanks to YouTube and the ability of anyone to create their own websites, literally anyone can, if they wish, set themselves up as critics. All they need is an audience.

Unfortunately, what Brie seems to be whining about is the demographics of the film critics promoted on Rotten Tomatoes. But if more white forty-something men set themselves up as film critics, what do you want to do? Tell them to quit? But go ahead, be my guest.

I'll sit back with my popcorn and watch the shitstorm as you tell people like Nathan Rabin, and The AV Club critics like Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, A.A. Dowd and Mike D'Angelo to quit on the basis of their identity. Seeing how all of those white forty-something men like to present themselves as woke-as-thou it will be a blast watching the mental gymnastics you all perform in order to reconcile your beliefs with your chosen lifestyles.

reply

Did you, or did you not, say the following "I give a great correlation: It's like a kids movie being reviewed by adults.
Wouldn't you assume that a kid might be interested in the reaction of similarly-aged peers instead of professional adult critics?"

FYI, that "reaction of similarly-aged peers" is called word of mouth. School kids telling each other "That movie was so badass" or "It was lame, I slept. Trailers were better."

Also,"might be" and "interested" both stand in stark contrast to your "should," as if Brie was decreeing that people had better just pay attention to their own race/gender/age/etc.

No, Brie was speaking about what people tend to gravitate toward, who/what they may be interested in reading when it comes to movie criticism... Then she commented about how the demographics of the "professional film critic" circle is quite narrow compared to the demographics of viewers, as the critics are overwhelmingly older white men.

Also, she put race and gender and age together, specifically because she was talking about a person's immediate local culture that they relate to.


To which my answer, speaking as someone who was a kid, is 'no'.

You were one kid, you were not kids in general. As for me, I split between reading professional critics, and getting recommendations from my friends... But all that was secondary to getting personal, time-tested recommendations from my dad, who was and is a film fanatic.

But I never listened to critics that much and still don't. In fact I don't think I read "professional" movie reviews at all anymore... One every once in a while if it's well-written.

Because critics can be biased toward positive quotable reviews, I prefer taking a statistical sample of reaction from a range of people.... Message boards like these. I also skim through user reviews on IMDb occasionally and hunt for passionate opinions, good reasoning given to their dissection, and writing that does not sound like copypasta.

But WE are not average.

reply

What I'll say is this, and IMHO this is the more helpful way of looking at the marginalisation of women and POC within film, specifically film criticism: where specific instances of female and/or black film critics and would-be film critics are being discriminated against/held back/actively dissuaded from publishing and sharing their reviews exist, this needs to be highlighted.

That constitutes as a scandal, and I don't doubt that it happens.

But simply saying 'we need more film critics who match this demographic (and by extension fewer film critics who match that demographic) is unhelpful IMHO, because it should depend on what everyone's interests are.

I have zero doubt that women and black people have been marginalised in Western cinema for far too long. In theory, at least 50% of films should be made by, and starring, women, and around about 15% or so of US films should be made by, and starring, black people, in accordance with the actual demographics. Anything else is intrinsically unfair.

That said, there may be instances where people of certain backgrounds are more inclined to gravitate towards certain industries over others.

One doesn't, or shouldn't, complain about why there are more black people than white people in the NBA, or why there are more white Morris Dancers than black ones.

I'm not necessarily saying that applies to film, but white men do tend, on balance, to be more wonkish and obsessive than other groups, which would lead more to a natural interest in film criticism, or at least setting up personal film sites, which, in today's era, leads to people being recognised as 'official' film critics for the purposes of aggregation sites like Rotten Tomatoes.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see more black and/or female 'geeks' and pop culture obsessives set up their own sites and become recognised for their reviews and articles, but ultimately it's a matter of freedom for me. As long as nobody is being held back, we should encourage all critics.

reply

I have zero doubt that women and black people have been marginalised in Western cinema for far too long. In theory, at least 50% of films should be made by, and starring, women, and around about 15% or so of US films should be made by, and starring, black people, in accordance with the actual demographics. Anything else is intrinsically unfair.
........
Personally, I'd LOVE to see more black and/or female 'geeks' and pop culture obsessives set up their own sites and become recognised for their reviews and articles, but ultimately it's a matter of freedom for me. As long as nobody is being held back, we should encourage all critics.

Awesome. You agree with Brie fully, then. Combine the theory paragraph I quoted with the preference paragraph I quoted (again, Brie was talking about general preferences of readers who look for pro film reviews, and impact of critics on the industry, especially indies/low-budget movies).

So then the theory for criticism is that ideally, the critic demographics would be expected to match a sampling of the general population's demographics. This is VERY important in courts of law that seek to assemble balanced juries!

Anything less than a decent sampling is intrinsically unfair.... But "correcting" that for film reviews would be a matter for future hiring and future headhunting by newspapers and websites that want a film critic or two... not firing people, and not having them quit or bullying them out.

I personally think the optics of who is doing film criticism is rarely considered, since the critics are rarely seen.

Also, I agree with you that white guys are going to be more inclined toward that kind of writing.

See? There are cultural differences. I was brought up and grew up within a strong push toward analytics and objectivity without sacrificing subjectivity.

reply

So then the theory for criticism is that ideally, the critic demographics would be expected to match a sampling of the general population's demographics.
You're slightly misquoting/misinterpreting me here.

I said ideally that 50% of films should helmed by women, and ideally 15% of US films should be helmed by black filmmakers, in accordance with the current population demographics. Since films are financed by studios, including independent studios, fronted by accountable committees and executives, ensuring a reasonably fair balance of female and black helmed films in accordance with population demographics is, in fact, a manageable aim, assuming the will exists.

However, I think film criticism is a slightly different field because it is no longer the preserve of major news publications, like the big newspapers (i.e. The Washington Post, The New York Times, and so on). Thanks to the internet it's become much more democratised. Anyone can now set themselves up as a professional film critic of some cachet assuming they've got a YouTube channel and/or a website.

The irony of such democratisation however is that we cannot, nor should we try to, police the types of people who 'go viral' on YouTube or generate popular and sustainable film criticism sites.

It would be akin to saying that there are too many white male voices on this site; arguably there are, but it would be unreasonable and even undesirable to do anything about that, other than to simply make this forum as welcoming as possible to diverse voices.

Likewise, we can't say that a white fortysomething man who starts a new film site should think again and make way for a female POC simply to address the demographic skew. It's up to white men, and women and/or POC to do their own thing and follow their interests.

Not for the rest of us to social engineer society and tell people what they should and should not be doing with their lives in accordance with their identity. Don't you agree?

reply

However, I think film criticism is a slightly different field because it is no longer the preserve of major news publications, like the big newspapers (i.e. The Washington Post, The New York Times, and so on). Thanks to the internet it's become much more democratised.

Democratization, and more widespread hobby-film-criticism (which is more respectable due to the absence of monetary concerns), SHOULD statistically result in a closer demographic match.... And I believe that does happen to a degree. I see more females and non-whites doing "amateur online movie reviews" than I would see in professional circles, but I'm not doing the math... Just going by limited observation (sampling!).

HOWEVER, YES, the biggest flaw in Brie's commentary was her old-school approach, speaking about professional film critics as if it was a rising movement, instead of a dying trend... And dying for good reason. Film criticism is definitely a non-job, and I hope it's simply "side writing" for most of them, as I also hope they are legitimate journalists who do other articles (unless their movie criticism is super insightful and/or original... gotta stand out).

It's a very bottom-of-the-barrel job to only write film criticism. It also piggybacks on the work of others, so the job is also kind of embarrassing to call a job. It's a small feedback-based writing assignment, per movie, and it really shouldn't take longer than 30 minutes to write a review.

reply

I personally have no problem with anyone getting paid to review films. I champion anyone who is able to monotonise their interests, as long as it doesn't harm others.

I also agree with Brie to some extent if she's saying that publications, like The Washington Post, The New York Times, movie journals, and so on, should do whatever they can to ensure that their staff is as representative of the national demographics as possible (so, ideally at least 50% of professional film critics will be women, and at least 15% of professional film critics based in the US will be black, and so on).

Where I think Brie has missed the point, and I'm pleased that you've acknowledged it, is in her focus on old-school film criticism, and thus ignoring the fact that many, perhaps even the majority, of film critics today are freelance and/or hobbyists who aren't employed in any traditional sense, but supplement their film review/commentary sites and YouTube videos via advertising and sponsorship. And I honestly don't think anyone should begrudge any of them, irrespective of their age, race, gender and sexuality, simply for striving and trying to put food on the table for doing what they love doing.

reply

No one person is begrudged... the finger points to the past, to the history of white dominance through force, oppression, white xenophobia, etc. The country's very foundation was a joke, championing equality in the Constitution while slavery was accepted and women couldnt vote.

Power creates suppression. Its natural and inevitable, but I dont want to get into the math right now.

reply

When I was about 19 or 20, Contact came out, and quickly became one of my favorite movies. It's currently in a tie with my other favorites for first place. I saw it 5 times in the theater, and watching it on blu-ray today I will still get chills and other sensations at certain parts (like when the first machine is destroyed, or when Hadden says "Wanna take a ride?").

I think the nail in the coffin for professional movie reviews was the one I read for Contact, after I'd already seen it for the first time. The reviewer (writer for newspaper in Portland Oregon) did a basic summary of the movie, but then shot it all down with what he considered an unforgivable sin: He had to sit through that whole movie, barely paying attention probably, and complained "THEY DIDN'T EVEN SHOW THE ALIENS" as if some half-assed creature design by a Stan Winston wannabe was going to change the entire movie.

It pissed me off to read that negative review, complaining about something irrelevant to the movie. That guy probably hated Jaws. "THEY BARELY SHOWED THE SHARK!"

I do believe that was the last time I sincerely looked at a critic review.... But probably not, since it HAS been 21 years.

reply

A third post... Regarding movie reviews.

I wrote movie reviews for a small internal publication only distributed within a company, albeit a large company, and I was indeed paid since it was expected that they would be written while I was on the clock.

I immediately leaned toward a specific style that I felt was natural, and a "voice" that I would never allow to be completely positive or negative. I made myself point out the good and bad of every movie I covered, as well as outlining the type of crowd it's aiming for, so that people could decide for themselves if something was their cup of tea.

They were SUPER popular, but also easy reading because I'm more a prose and fiction writer, but I do also read/write essays. This was about halfway between.

It looks like I only kept three, and I will post those in a reply to this post (so you don't get more notifications). I wanted to save them all, but life gets in the way.

I tried to use the popularity of my reviews to argue that the company should pay for me to see one movie every weekend, since I was only reviewing what I had already planned to see on my own and would have seen it regardless of writing a review.

They didn't agree to that, so I stopped writing them, and that was that. I got some disappointing feedback but it really was cutting into my work time.

OH WAIT... I have six of them saved??? Maybe. I'll post them in reply to this, starting with Pain & Gain, which was possibly my favorite that I wrote. You will see my clear tri-paragraph setup... Also I tried to reduce "summarizing" the movie as much as possible. I hate seeing reviews that use a slavish summary as filler.

reply

Pain & Gain
Review by (Frogarama!)

Normally, this is the type of movie I might overlook without thinking twice. A tale of bodybuilders pulling off an unbelievably audacious heist, "Pain & Gain" could have been safely serviced with a by-the-numbers narrative. Thankfully, Michael Bay's over the top signature style renders it with brutal and efficient beauty, transforming (wink wink) it into a dark comedy that can stand proudly alongside rambunctious classics of the genre such as “Raising Arizona” or “Bringing Out the Dead” (Nicolas Cage would have certainly been at home here as well).

Though it started slowly, this unapologetically macho, gloriously twisted movie pulled me in so deeply that I actually felt a hint of paranoia when the police started closing in, a palpable sense of guilt for experiencing so much enjoyment while watching. The viewer truly becomes an accessory to the crimes, and the only way to salvage your morality is to hope you see these men face justice by the end. After it was over, I had to immediately get online to read up on the true story behind the movie, a level of immersion I haven't gained from a crime-centered movie since David Fincher's addictive "Zodiac." It's a good thing this is based on real events, because this is the kind of material that just can't be made up, a fact even Michael Bay has to remind us of late in the movie with a hilarious, disgusting, and perfectly timed moment.

If you have the stomach for abrasive comedy wrapped around a truly shocking and heinous story, presented with such a lack of restraint that it makes you love and hate everyone involved (including the victims!), then you would be remiss to miss this picture. Pain & Gain hit home video this past Tuesday, August 27th.

reply

Gravity
Review by Frogarama

Gravity, one of the four fundamental interactions of physics, does a lot for us. Second only to the strong nuclear force, gravity assists with everything large and small, from keeping your morning coffee in its mug to making sure everything on the Earth isn't tossed out into space.

Hold on, I'm supposed to be reviewing the movie... Even though every critic's already had his or her say on this one, gushing over the amazing spectacle juxtaposed with emotional resonance and illuminated by genuine performances. A lot could be said, such as: It doesn't matter if you like dramas, action movies, sci-fi, disaster flicks, more art house style of film, experimental cinema, or even if you're just a casual space enthusiast, this will be pretty close to a must-see for you. Personally, I think the best addition I could make to the conversation would be that movies like this are special because they're true experiences. So many other choices at the theater can just passively entertain, but Gravity hypnotizes and intoxicates, delivering masterfully on every level.

In summary, if you want to see a really great "space movie," catch this while you can. Out of the two things I've reviewed today, only the movie is a choice we can make. As for the physical force of gravity, it applies universally whether we like it or not. I'm thankful... It keeps me grounded (the pun is, unfortunately, intended).

reply

(It was at this review, one of the last I wrote, that I decided on "The Biggest Picture" as the title of my review column... I still like that)

The Bling Ring
Review by Frogarama

Sofia Coppola's latest entry into film history is a fairly straightforward dramatization of the real-life group of young people who went on a theft spree from 2008 to 2009. You probably saw it on the news, these kids found celebrity houses online and simply snuck in past lax security as the owners were out of town on widely publicized events. Almost the perfect crime! Almost.

The Bling Ring is a fun and ironically intimate portrayal of detached L.A. youngsters understandably obsessed with the concepts of fame and fashion, who see celebrity culture with less admiration and more entitlement. The young actors bring sparkling life to their characters, and the film is nicely put together, but the most interesting aspect of it comes from the very act of viewing. Having someone like Sofia Coppola create a motion picture around the actions of these people becomes less criticism and more of a compliment... If not a confession. I'm sure Sofia, privileged as she is, can understand the frustrations and obsessions of those who lack the lifestyle of opportunity she was born into.

In fact, the very existence of this movie demonstrates that this group of friends won the very fame and notoriety they reached for. It's not even the first movie about them! Judging by the fairly short jail sentences served, these kids unfortunately may have a hard time being convinced that crime doesn't pay. The Bling Ring hit home video this past Tuesday, September 17th.

reply

The Artist
Review by Frogarama

With the Oscar announcements out and the steam it's gaining, a lot is being said about the movie The Artist, so before it becomes old hat to do so I thought I'd throw my own hat into the ring. As you probably already know, this is a black-and-white, mostly silent movie about the movie industry's transition from silent films into "talkies," and if it wasn't for the appearance of a few highly recognizable modern actors, this "period piece" could easily pass for an actual vintage movie. The performances, sets and costumes set an extremely authentic tone.

Of course, an experimental and historically aware movie like this can often be a serious affair, but the best part about The Artist is that it's tremendous fun. The conventions of the movie's style allows it to get away with a slimmer storyline than some, but the characters are sold so well that it draws you into watching the nuanced nonverbal acting in between the occasional bits of dialogue. The main actor plays a movie star who is a loose amalgam of Rudolph Valentino and John Gilbert, and while he does a great job, I was personally quite taken by his female costar who plays Peppy Miller. Her character is great, and the actress brings her to life, but guys I will warn you in advance that she is married to the director, so there is no hope for us.

Film buffs and historians obviously owe it to themselves to see this one, but I think just about anyone could enjoy The Artist. I found myself reminded of other self-aware movies about movies, ranging all the way from "The Purple Rose of Cairo" to the more recent "Pleasantville." It's good entertainment, and a good experiment to see how well a silent movie goes over in today's world. Seems to be doing well so far.

reply

It was tough to make this Drive review partly positive... I hated the movie passionately and still do.


In Drive, Ryan Gosling plays a stunt driver who moonlights as a getaway driver, a very professional and stoic man, who then gets involved with the life and troubles of his beautiful single neighbor and her son while his associate attempts to get him into the racing circuit. The cast even includes Albert Brooks playing a great role that may surprise you in the end. The movie is slow and ponderous, and quickly becomes a relatively basic crime tale… But it is the "slow and ponderous" element that ultimately weighs it down the most.

Drive is an odd movie. It is sentimental yet brutal, serious yet exaggerated, and has the scent of both deep artistry and cheap schlock. So where does it land, in the end? For me, the first 20 to 30 minutes were excellent, and after that I found myself checking the time repeatedly. I love slow movies, but they are slow for reasons, such as giving you time to think about the characters or letting you wallow in suspense. Drive, unfortunately, doesn't have enough meat to justify its numerous lengthy shots of characters staring blankly or moving slowly, scenes that feel more like stalling than substance. The music starts out wonderfully, but the songs gradually become more grating and extremely overused, becoming even more padding for the movie's running time. There are also a few violent scenes which, for me, became awkward and humorous, bringing me to wonder if Drive was possibly intended as a dark comedy.

All in all, my criticism cannot be taken too harshly, as I am holding Drive up to the high cinematic standards for which it aims. I may not have cared for it much, but I wanted to, which will keep this movie in my mind for a while. Drive is far better than most movies you'll find, the story is as fresh as it can be, the dialogue is great, and it will be especially significant for those who love crime dramas. As a favorable comparison, it feels like an anti-hero version of Taxi Driver mixed with a heavy Kubrick influence, though I must say I very seriously doubt the director of Drive would become the next Marty or Stanley.

reply

The Tree of Life
Review by Frogarama

Money always throws motivations into question. So, big-budget art movies… I've been told they are an oxymoron, and I know the feeling. Now, not to compare, but even Michelangelo was hired--almost against his will--to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. One movie about to hit the video shelves next month, The Tree Of Life starring Brad Pitt, invites you to judge its merits as art in commerce.

I'd heard the most about the periods of hypnotic CGI space imagery and landscapes with early life forms, but they are relatively minor. This is a very down to earth story, more like a strobing flashback memory, mostly covering three boys at a turning point in their relationship with their conflicted mother and hard working father, all sparked by the family's reflections on the eventual death of the eldest son. One thing I must say, I realized about halfway through that it was suddenly difficult to see these people as actors. All of the main performances are striking, and the two older boys become downright iconic. The acting, editing and visual storytelling are so natural as the movie flows along that it's easy to be taken off guard at how impressive it all is, not to mention losing yourself in the sheer volume of remarkable photography pouring into your eyes. So yes, it spoils you and I think most movie fans would enjoy it greatly, but do make sure to bring some extra snacks for later.

Now, as for the conversation about money... Who the heck am I to ask these questions? I want studio funding to produce my own movies, and I certainly consider those art! When it comes to The Tree Of Life and others of its caliber, I say we bring even more cash to the table because these are the kinds of films that should be shot in 3D! Long live Hollywood!

reply

First off Malkovich (Being John Malkovich is a favorite of mine and one reason I like you), yes I had six of my old semi-pro reviews, and posted them all just above. No more shall be coming unfortunately. This is probably around half of what I wrote, like fifteen reviews in total. Even Transformers 3 got covered.

Secondly, you're still tainting what Brie said:

Unfortunately, what Brie seems to be whining about is the demographics of the film critics promoted on Rotten Tomatoes. But if more white forty-something men set themselves up as film critics, what do you want to do? Tell them to quit? But go ahead, be my guest.

I'll sit back with my popcorn and watch the shitstorm as you tell people like Nathan Rabin, and The AV Club critics like Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, A.A. Dowd and Mike D'Angelo to quit on the basis of their identity.

She didn't advise anyone to quit or stop, that's just silly. She didn't advise anything, and actually the MAIN thrust of her speech was the impact that critics have on the earnings for indie films and low-budget flicks. Yes, Brie knows what it's like to act on the lower paid end of the scale, despite all the misogynists who claimed she knows nothing of struggle because she landed a few big roles and an Oscar... As if Brie was born an actress. She didn't even have connections. Her partial role on Community was odd because she'd show up in an episode here and there, have a LOT of lines, then vanish for the rest of the season.

Also I used to hang out in the same circles as Brie and Andy Samberg and Dan Harmon, who created Community (then Rick & Morty). I remember her. Smart woman, has her head on straight.

What I quoted from you up there is just you doubling down on your incorrect, highly altered misinterpretation of her words. I see I'm also not the only one pointing out to you what Brie actually said.

reply

You've been polite and friendly to me here, despite our big differences in opinion, so I'm going to make doubly sure that I avoid being rude, still, with all due respect, do you now think your opinions are tainted if you 'used to hang out in the same circles as Brie...'?

Also, Brie started acting in her youth, so even if she wasn't born into acting, she has gained success very early in her life, which is possibly why she is able to make such ageist comments about fortysomethings (i.e. the types of people who didn't enjoy the level of success Brie was fortunate to experience in her twenties).

As a side point, why do we tolerate ageism? If we take a zero tolerance stand against other forms of bigotry, like racism and sexism, shouldn't we take a zero tolerance stand against ageism?

This contradiction and hypocrisy really confuses me.

Also, please explain to me why it is 'misogynist' to call out socioeconomic privilege? If I call out a white male actor on their privilege it isn't misogynist, so why is it 'misogynist' if I call out a white female actor on their privilege?

reply

"You've been polite and friendly to me here"

There should be no other way! I'm aiming for communication, not a battle... there are plenty of battles waiting elsewhere on MovieChat if I want them (like on the Trump board).



"do you now think your opinions are tainted if you 'used to hang out in the same circles as Brie...'?"

I didn't know her directly, she didn't know my name. I personally think my run-ins with her simply make me know her better, as opposed to those who only know her as an Oscar-winning actress who then went to the MCU.

Also, there is no tainting when compared to the other two examples. I didn't like Andy Samberg because he was an arrogant douchebag who had grown up in wealth and had his connections HANDED to him by his lawyer-to-the-stars father (IIRC). Andy and his buddies had Brooke Shields in a little short they filmed as teenagers simply because they had access to her through the family.

However.... Andy has won me over. Brooklyn Nine-Nine is one of my favorite shows ever, and he's a partial creator. He also possibly references one of my shorts in the opening credits, which I find potentially flattering.

I was also iffy on Dan Harmon, who isn't very nice, but extremely intelligent. However, Community was great for a while... but Rick & Morty is my bread & butter. I thank Dan Harmon's existence due to that show.



"Also, Brie started acting in her youth, so even if she wasn't born into acting, she has gained success very early in her life"

Yes, she worked her way up the industry over a period of nearly 20 years. Started with throwaway crap in 1998 and didn't become a "name" until 2015, with Room.... Which was an indie flick!

So yes she is defending indie flicks (in her speech about movie critics) probably because the indie realm is where her pride & joy lives. She is VERY NEW to "big Hollywood" and I doubt she wants to do big movies for the rest of her life.

I predict Brie is aiming toward being a director, and will likely make a great director.

reply

I appreciate most of what you've said.

Of course there should be no other way here but politeness and friendliness, but you know as well as I do, that's not the case for many threads and boards here (although I must confess, this site is generally much more reasonable and pleasant than many other similar sites, including the former IMDb).

I take your word on both Sandberg and Harmon. What you say about them both rings very true.

Sandberg does occasionally come across as a bit of a complacent and conceited rich boy (I didn't know that about his family background, but after you stated it, it all made sense), but he also seems quite likeable and fun to be around, and like you I do like him in Brooklyn Nine-Nine (I also really enjoyed Pop Star).

I am less familiar with Dan Harmon's work, but from what I gather he is exactly as you say he is: intelligent and talented, but not especially pleasant.

As for Brie, I get that she's been in the business for a while and 'paid her dues' so to speak, but even if it took her nearly twenty years to make her name, it's not as if she was scrubbing carpets for a living. She is part of one of the most fun and free professions in the world. A career that sounds like it can be a lot of fun, even when you're relatively poor and wondering where your next pay check is going to come from.

Those people lucky to get into the industry, whether because of connections and privilege, or genuine hard work and/or talent, should still acknowledge that luck and the fact that they're not working in a factory or a soul-destroying office. And to be honest, the actors I know may not be the richest people in the world. They may not even be in regular work. But when they do get a job, it's usually pretty well-paid and enough to afford a decent place to live, and to travel and socialise.

Like I say, they're better off than many.

reply

Well, just living in advanced nations puts us both ahead of most of the world. Half the Earths population basically lives in abject poverty, compared.

I forgot to mention Pop Star, hell yes that was great and SO funny. Also if you're unfamiliar, the Lonely Island had some good stuff, which was Samberg, Taccone and... whatever Akiva's last name is.

I recommend their song Stork Patrol, I think they did a music video too.

As an artist, I do have to agree that Id rather be poor while paying the bills through art/creation... but I am firmly embedded in the corporate and legal world. My struggle is finding time to create.

However, Im at least lucky that my day job utilizes my abilities well, and I get variety. Plus, I have HEAVY responsibilities, which motivates me (I work best under pressure).

reply

I'm really pleased that we've had such a respectful discussion here. Hopefully you'll appreciate that for all our occasional differences, I'm mostly a good sort.

With respect to actors, I have immense respect for those actors who are sincere about their work, and to be fair I think Larson is one of them.

But I do hate the narrative surrounding the acting community that implies that they are part of a particularly conscientious profession.

Personally, I suspect that there are just as many assholes in the acting community as there are in politics, law, medicine and business. Bear in mind that Trump has 'acted' in a few films. He and Reagan are the US's celebrity Presidents.

Also, bear in mind that a lot of very vain, narcissistic, vapid people go into entertainment for the most shallow of reasons.

reply

Also, please explain to me why it is 'misogynist' to call out socioeconomic privilege?

Oops, I meant to reply to this.

I can't answer because I don't consider THAT to be misogynistic, and did not label it as such.

If I said something in a post that seemed to refer to that as misogyny, it was unintended and possibly something I would edit for clarity.... if you pointed me toward my comment in question.

reply

I just checked.

You were talking about all the people who were misogynists for suggesting that Brie doesn't know hardship.

Now, I happen to think that a lot of Brie's critics are misogynists. But when you call out someone for socioeconomic privilege, I'm not sure that's an example of misogyny.

Am I a misogynist, for instance, for saying that Ivanka and Tiffany Trump are super-privileged, simply because they're women?

reply

Oh no, they were misogynists first, and then the deliberate attacks on her character follow from that.

They weren't calling out socioeconomic privilege, they were literally trying to imply that she's always been a rich successful blockbuster actress and doesn't know anything about indie film work, struggling as an actor, etc.

Just the fact that she got an Oscar for a low-budget indie film 4 years ago is enough to blow that claim out of the water... And then comes the fact that "Brie Larson" was largely meaningless before that, unless perhaps someone knew her from Community and also happened to look up her name (which is gonna happen, she's a cute-but-not-unapproachable, smart nerdy type, so yeah, guys who are online all the time are gonna look her up).

reply

I don't think Brie has imposed what you should be interested in. She's highlighting that the demographic that sets the agenda for criticism isn't necessarily the same demographic as the audience.

reply

What's most telling is that most of the people who complain about Brie's words always paraphrase or misquote her. This is because they know that her actual words weren't bad at all, but determined to find offense they say things like "Brie doesn't want white men to see her movie." I've said it before and I'll say it again; as a white guy I am embarrassed by people who cry over shit like this (the same goes for people complaining about Jordan Peele's words on casting leading men in his films). It's just so lame.

reply

I'll say this, I'd certainly prefer to listen to what the average black person and/or woman have to say about these films, or any topic for that matter, than yet more self-loathing, self-debasing bleating from a pathetically 'woke' and superior-as-thou white guy.

I suspect most black people and/or women find such wimps to be as pathetic as I do.

reply

I'll say this, I'd certainly prefer to listen to what the average black person and/or woman have to say about these films, or any topic for that matter, than yet more self-loathing, self-debasing bleating from a pathetically 'woke' and superior-as-thou white guy.

I suspect most black people and/or women find such wimps to be as pathetic as I do.
…..annnnnnndddddddd you and your off-skewed suspicion would be wrong. I swear you have at least two or multiple personalities. You spend far too much time trying to find two sides to pit against each other and or trying to create your own counter to a position or strawman that no one holds.

SamGerard I both agree with and see the common ground and common sense in his post, but your attempts at an ad hominem attack on him is low, unreasonable and duplicitous.

But like you yourself bleated out you listen to whoever and whomever you want to listen to.

reply

What 'ad hominem attack'?

Have I attacked SamGerard?

Do you have a problem with me saying that I prefer to listen to the views of strong and well-adjusted black people and/or women over weak and self-loathing white pandering pseudo-liberal men?

Who's the racist/sexist now?

reply

I believe Norrin is suggesting that your reply to SamGerard sounded like it was directed to him specifically, but without actually saying so, like a passive-aggressive comment.

I thought it sounded that way too, but I take your post at face value and dispose of that "sound."

With that said, though, I have no idea what self-loathing pandering pseudo-liberal(s) you may be speaking of... And that noteworthy lack of specificity contributes to the notion that it was supposed to be talking about Sam.

There you go, just giving you some external perspective.

reply

What's most telling is that most of the people who complain about Brie's words always paraphrase or misquote her.

Indeed, but I'm torn on motivation, so I will say its likely a mix: People who genuinely misinterpreted her, possibly due to paranoia that white guys are "targeted" lately (it's not recent and not unjustified when applied only to those who fit the mold).... and secondly, the dishonest misogynists who are spreading propaganda (including trolls).

The Star Wars "boys" did the same to Rey, completely changing how she was actually portrayed. The worst one was claiming Rey was "perfect," ignoring the fact that she made a string of damaging and near-fatal mistakes that outweighed her good choices. She screwed up once in almost every sequence she was part of, and slowed down the attack on Starkiller base.

Han lost his freighter because Rey overestimated her abilities with the mechanics of the ship's door control system.

She stumbled her way through Force Awakens, full of fear and doubt and feeling out of place.

reply

What's most telling is that most of the people who complain about Brie's words always paraphrase or misquote her.

Good, so how exactly is misquoted this sentence? “I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about A Wrinkle in Time"

reply

Nothing is misquoted there. Nor do I find that quote bad...especially if it's expanded and the full context is given: "I don’t need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work about A Wrinkle in Time,It wasn’t made for him! I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color."
Larson clarified: "Am I saying I hate white dudes? No, I am not. What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie."

I have no problem with those comments and nothing about them strikes me as offensive. But the below are some other examples from these boards of how these quotes have been misinterpreted and I find it all so lame:

she's also racist against herself and sexist as well. Banning white guys from seeing her movies!

Why the obsessive hatred of "White men"?

Why does she hate white dudes so much??

So where does the leftist propaganda take the MCU now? Openly celebrating communisim? Celebrating dwindling white birth rates around the world? Just more hating white men?

How do these liberal white feminists who hate white men accept that they wouldnt exist without them?

reply

Fine.

Then I suppose you'll agreed that Non-Christians shouldn't review Christian movies, since they weren't meant for them. Jews shouldn't review nazi German movies, since they weren't meant for them. Blacks shouldn't review classic cinema, since it wasn't meant for them. Western people shouldn't review Chinese or Japanese movies, because they weren't meant for them.

In general, you should ONLY talk about movies that were meant for your demographic group, isn't it?

reply

I think anyone should review whatever movie they like and if someone finds value in their opinion, that's great. But if I were a fundamentalist Christian who liked Christian movies (which would largely be considered terrible by general audiences) I wouldn't pay attention to a non-Christian review and I would look at reviews from Christian publications.

Likewise I doubt Japanese people would be looking toward western reviewers for opinions on Asian cinema. As for classic cinema I think you could argue that the world has changed so much that those films weren't actually made for anyone in particular in today's modern world.

If you care what a white dude has to say about A Wrinkle in Time, that's great, enjoy. I had zero desire to see that movie so I'm not really concerned what anyone had to say about it. But if I were to look for opinions on it, I would imagine that a young person of color would likely take something from it that a white guy in his 40s like myself would not. I can understand and respect Brie's viewpoint regarding this and not automatically default her opinion as her hating white men. Honestly this outrage is really just so silly.

reply

"Good, so how exactly is misquoted this sentence?"

First, it should be "how exactly is this sentence misquoted" and your version sounds like Engrish.

Secondly, your quote literally highlights CLEARLY that she's talking about critic demographics vs. audience demographics.

Thus, your quote wouldn't even fit an Antifeminist agenda.

reply

Fine.

Let's apply that argument to other fields. Christian movies have a mostly Christian audience demographics. I supposed that you'll agree that newspapers and magazines should hire Christian critics to review Christian movies or write about then, don't you?

reply

To be honest, I get the impression that most critics simply ignore those films.

reply

That's true, but they ignore them because Christian movies are really bad, not because they weren't 'meant' for them XD And in case they decide to talk about them, they don't delegate in some Christian critic.

reply

If she said the same thing about black men, it would have been a national outrage story.

reply

I actually addressed this comprehensively in the Captain Marvel version of this topic, but I targeted black women instead of black men, just to make it tougher on myself.

Well since the majority of critics are white men and not black women, lets go to neutral ground.

Its also extreme ground, which makes it easy to predict statistical probabilities: The land of porn reviews.

Lets say a bunch of black women did review mens porn and were particularly upset about the excess of black male on white female porn.

Does the mostly male >target audience< care to hear the general reaction of black women to this kind of porn?

No, and it's perfectly fine to point that out. Because in this scenario, you are responding to something actually happening: Black women reviewing mens porn!

reply

Does anyone review porn?

Porn is crap anyhow, and about as subjective as you can get.

No two people are going to be sexually turned on by the same thing.

reply

1. I imagine actual releases on disc have sites that review them. However my extreme ground was also intended to be something that was practically nonexistent, gambling on the odds that no one reading my post was a regular purveyor of pornography critique.

2. There is too much porn to say it's crap... There's something for everyone.

2b. But subjectivity is what we want! More is even better for the example.

Or not 2b.

3. I'm sure you can easily find two people turned on by the same thing, but I believe you're referring to each person's entire range of sexual turn-ons, not just one example. Yes your range is very personal, like a fingerprint.

3b. No two people have the exact same range in movie taste. There are too many movies for that to be the case anymore. If two people matched, they would just have to watch more until they hit one disagreement. If two people matched 100%, I would imagine they are also identical twins and live together as roommates in adulthood.

c4. An explosive.

reply

I think there are more commonalities when it comes to what people consider great art, as opposed to what people consider 'great porn'. After all, when it comes to great art we mostly think with our brains, which are rational. When it comes to 'great porn' we think with other parts of our body, that aren't so rational...

reply

Actual quote, I always use it when it fits.

God gave man a penis and a brain. And only enough blood to run one at a time.
-Robin Williams

reply

The thing is:
She tells people who a movie is for (in this case AWIT) because it features kids and a diverse cast. What she's basically saying is: If you're not represented in the movie you have no right to criticize that movie. She did that because she tried to silence people who were not (in her mind) represented in her movie and might criticize that. It's a pre-emptive strike to protect herself.
The main problem for me was: she then went along and blocked people who are (again in her mind) not represented in her movie (and could criticize it) from interviewing her which is (unlike what she thinks) not ok.

PS: I watch basically EVERY single movie that somehow interests me. I don't care if it's a RomCom (I even like those Hallmark Xmas movies), kids movie (AWIT, House with Clocks and even Goosebumps) or a movie representing different races (Miss Bala is the newest example) and I'm a 40 something, white dude. I don't fit in either political corner.

reply

"What she's basically saying is: If you're not represented in the movie you have no right to criticize that movie."

Incorrect. She clearly and explicitly stated that the demographics are a mismatch between critics and audience, and critics affect box office, so representation matters... especially for indie movies like Room. This is why juries aim for representing the population.

She talked about a teen girl of color and whether that demographic WANTS to hear from a 40 year old white dude.

The 40 year old white dude is reviewing the movie mostly for other 40ish white dudes! The "white" has the least impact but its still present.

Target demographics are a real thing, and have been forever. Culture variation is real, even from one neighborhood to the next. Interests that tend to link to age, gender and race ARE REAL. Thats why there are publications devoted to narrow demographics. Jewish newspapers. Black interest magazines like Jet and Ebony. Magazines/websites for kids. Publications for men, and for women. Then some general interest stuff like People.

There are websites that review movies from a Christian slant. What if EVERY reviewer was a hard-line Christian? Do you think all the non Christians want to hear their movies reviewed with that bias? They do not, but the Christian reviewers still exist and still cater to their demographic.

This is basic shit, honestly. That simplicity is why my topic speaks to confusion.

reply

"She talked about a teen girl of color and whether that demographic WANTS to hear from a 40 year old white dude."
And she doesn't. A teen girl of color can DECIDE whose review she wants to read/watch and will go on a youtube channel that she's interested in and can choose based on her liking/demographic. You basically write that yourself later. That makes BL's whole rant a moot point.

"The 40 year old white dude is reviewing the movie mostly for other 40ish white dudes!"
Exactly. So what's the point of her rant then?

" The "white" has the least impact but its still present."
So they shouldn't exist at all? As I wrote before BL literally refused to even talk to white dudes because they're not anything else. That's basically discrimination and would not be ok if they were anything else but white dudes.

"Target demographics are a real thing, and have been forever. Culture variation is real, even from one neighborhood to the next. Interests that tend to link to age, gender and race ARE REAL. Thats why there are publications devoted to narrow demographics. Jewish newspapers. Black interest magazines like Jet and Ebony. Magazines/websites for kids. Publications for men, and for women. Then some general interest stuff like People."
And again. Exactly. Every single one of these cater to their respective demographics and can opt in to publish a review. There's tons of webpages and even youtube channels (made by kids for kids) that cater to their respective demographics. If a teen girl of color wants a review she believe she can trust she'll find it (and most likely already found it). That girl will not go on Rotten Tomatoes or any other "white dude's" page if she's even interested in reviews because it's even more likely she's not since most children want to watch movies based on trailers and interest (Disney Princess, Animated or in this case a little girl entering a magical place) and not on reviews. Again: Makes BL's rant a moot point.

reply

"There are websites that review movies from a Christian slant. What if EVERY reviewer was a hard-line Christian? Do you think all the non Christians want to hear their movies reviewed with that bias? They do not, but the Christian reviewers still exist and still cater to their demographic."
Exactly. So why can't they all co-exist and whoever wants to watch that movie can choose if they want to read a review by whoever they want to. Why are 40's dudes reviews not ok?

PS: I've seen several 40's dudes (without kids mind you) while I was watching kids movies. I've even read there's a culture of adult males watching Barbie movies (a little too much for me personally) and Disney Princess movies (also too much for me). So there is a demographic.
Last but not least: I live in a 60% Hispanic area with 90% of my neighbors being Hispanic including my roommate. We discussed this topic at a party (brought up by one of them) and some even refused to watch CM because of this. Even they said she went too far.
PPS: I watched CM btw.

reply

What Marc is saying is... he’s just regurgitating everything all the incels/chuds/reactionaries have been trying to miserably convince others about Brie. Is he another shameless paranoid incel with his own political agenda or a fair indivial who’s genuinely outraged by what Brie supposedly said and stands for (even though he rejects any proof of what she actually said)? Doesn’t matter. All these Brie detractors use the same talking points and gladly spread lies about her. Needles to say, nothing Marc has said is factual, but we know how the crowd that cries “fake news” 24/7 love fake news more than anyone else.

It is utterly useless trying to be fair with these reactionary mofos, but lemme drop a few truth bombs before I leave this incel cesspool. Some will do their best to deny this as always, but you know this crowd has a problem with POC representation, female empowerment (among other “PC” things), and they can’t handle the thought of their kind not being the dominant force in any filed.

If preaching diversity is unacceptable enough for these mofos, then OF COURSE something like “I don’t need white dudes to tell me....” was going to make anti-social justice (aka anti-bigotry) chuds really lose their shit. Context? That obviously doesn’t matter to them. This statement exists and it came from a person who doesn’t preach the white power agenda. So naturally these raging incels were - are - going to do whatever they can to smear Brie.

But how’s that working out for them? Oh, they flock to boards like this by the numbers, they constantly cry about it in their alt reich pages, and they continue to be a bunch of whiny little ❄️ on YouTube by making asinine hate video after asinine hate video. However, as prevalent as their whining is on social medal, it’s ultimately all they got.

I mean looking at all the love Brie and Captain Marvel has received from countless of fans all over the world, it’s pretty damn clear the vocal but loud minority attacking Brie is truly insignificant. They’re trying to fight the inevitable (“icky” diversity) but in the end the saps will lose. As always.

reply

Yep. You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote.
Nothing is factual? So it's not factual that people CAN choose their own reviews? It's not factual young girls of color do NOT read 40 year old dudes reviews?
And then to put me into the f***ing racist crows is even worse. I've lived in a black household for years (being the only white dude) and loved it. In NYC I worked for a Mexican restaurant in the Bronx (again the only white dude). Right now I live in Cali in an all female household (except me) with a Hispanic/native American woman (remember? the one who refused to watch CM) and we're friends living in a more than 60% Hispanic area (about 15% black). I dated a black woman and wouldn't think twice if I was lucky to date one again (although I have an eye on a Kuwaitian woman right now). I hired people of all kinds of color for my business. I watched Black Panther 3 times in the theater and bought the 4k BluRay because I love that movie. I watched Wonder Woman twice (and also own the 4k BD) and even Captain Marvel (after I watched the infamous video). I watched a Winkle in time and liked it. My celebrity crush is Zendaya. I proudly call myself a pro-feminist man. However I'm not a SJW.
Don't you tell me I'm either racist or sexist. What I am is against any kind of exclusion no matter who.

reply

Context? That obviously doesn’t matter to them. This statement exists and it came from a person who doesn’t preach the white power agenda. So naturally these raging incels were - are - going to do whatever they can to smear Brie.

Yeah, although I do have to add that I realized there will be some who genuinely misinterpreted due to the fact that Brie was speaking in industry terms to industry peers.

Obviously a non-industry person will likely be listening through a perception rooted in feminism and current issues, while simultaneously not picking up on industrial implications like marketing demographics.

Now, when it's pointed out very clearly but the person still sticks to their ignorant guns, like MarcTale HAS done, then they're doing a propaganda crusade.

MarcTale is also feigning that whole "racism/misogyny isn't actually real" myth that so many Reich-Wingers have taken up.

Another one that's been pissing me off since Trump was elected are the charlatans pushing the whole "Democrats were the party of racism" while ENSURING that they don't give historical context and ENSURING that they don't mention Democrat/Republican are labels, not ideals, and have represented different ideals in the past.... and ENSURING that they don't mention the Republican Party was the Progressive Liberal party when it was brand new, and that before it existed, there were Democrats and Whigs...

The ones who remove context are always the propaganda artists. The ones who impart history and knowledge and give the "big picture" are always the seekers of truth. The fact that the propaganda artists don't realize this makes their propaganda SO OBVIOUS.

reply

I meant to respond to this one yesterday.

"Why are 40's dudes reviews not ok?"

No one has ever said that. Not even Brie. She said that it's a mismatch for the vast majority of professional critics to be that one demographic.

Also, you said in another post here that kids wouldn't read critics anyway. YES BECAUSE THERE ARE NO CRITICS THAT MATCH THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC!!! So they get word of mouth at school and from friends.

DID YOU KNOW that one of THE MOST POPULAR Youtube subjects is TOY REVIEWS BY CHILDREN? These things get millions and millions of hits. There are 10 year old kids who are the breadwinners of their family, whose parents quit their jobs and became "producers" of the shows, solely because their child got popular at doing toy reviews!

Look it up, I'm not exaggerating. Children would watch professional "kid critics."


"PS: I've seen several 40's dudes (without kids mind you) while I was watching kids movies."

I do the same thing. I was hyped for Incredibles 2, follow Pixar, and I always check out interesting-looking family movies. I have 3D blu-rays of Moana, Frozen, The Last Unicorn, and own plenty of other family movies.


"Last but not least: I live in a 60% Hispanic area with 90% of my neighbors being Hispanic including my roommate. We discussed this topic at a party (brought up by one of them) and some even refused to watch CM because of this. Even they said she went too far."

Did they watch her actual speech and understand it, or did they get a second-hand account with preconceptions and bias mixed in?

I'm betting money they did not watch the video... And FYI, obviously you can just say "they watched the video" but there's no reason for me to believe that, regardless of it being true or not.

-Froggy

reply

"A teen girl of color can DECIDE whose review she wants to read/watch and will go on a youtube channel that she's interested in"

First off, Brie is talking about professional published movie critics. You veered off to Youtube immediately, which yes is great for the girl, but Brie has worked in the movie industry for over 20 years and she is talking in industry terms at what I believe is a mostly industry event, probably an awards show type thing, but not your regular televised kind.

I think this may be the real problem here: She's talking in the terms of the movie business but you're interpreting it through a lens of politics, identity politics, feminism in Brie, and a perceived anti-white-male bias being popularized in society which, to me as a 41 year old white dude, I don't see! I think it's all identity counter-politics, fear whipped up over a non-issue by people insecure and intimidated by other "types" of people having their say.

So anyway, Brie is very clearly talking about industry concerns, demographics and marketing, she brings up the impact of critics on box office, which is a disproportionate effect on indie movies which is what she comes from.... So this means you can GUARANTEE there is nothing social or political or gender-based in her little speech. It's about movie marketing.

See, Brie has just entered the big leagues. One Oscar, then she's been the lead of a Disney/Marvel production and then was a lynchpin for a second Disney/Marvel movie in the same year.

But her Oscar was for an indie movie, so she's saying here that what she's bringing to her responsibilities as an industry player is more awareness of the little guys, and more awareness of the impact that the "movie system" (not industry) has on indies.

There's no where to fit anti-white-male sentiment because all of her speech is about industry concerns, AND it LITERALLY would NOT MAKE SENSE if she was badmouthing white guys. It would just be random.

reply

I ran out of space.

SECONDLY, saying the black teen can go elsewhere is like saying they can go use the black water fountain. Why do they have to want to use the white water fountain? Are they trying to spread some disease? It's gross.

They can just sit at the back of the bus. They can just move on and we don't have to acknowledge the imbalance that still remains in so many parts of society.

Your "alternatives" don't change or even comment on the actual reality of disparity which comes from history, like the conquerer mentality that founded this nation.

Also your alternatives have nothing to do with the effect that critics have on box office takes, which affects indie movies disproportionately.

Oh but you haven't addressed that because you don't think she's talking about the movie industry FOR SOME REASON.

It's called bias and it's affecting your interpretation. Listen to her speech. She talks about marketing demographics and box office and all kinds of stuff, but no random badmouthing of white men.

It's okay, we're not under attack. Seriously. That's just yammering from the weak.

As a 41 year old white dude, I can safely say she is not badmouthing 40 year old white dudes. We just happen to have inherited a "higher legitimacy" assumption that negatively affects white dudes in the long run but affects others right now who aren't included in that privilege.

reply

The issue here is (apparently) that POC are not represented. Then you name several magazines that represent POC. I just added other options by mentioning YT because as I wrote: A young girl will NOT read a professional critics' review of a movie (they just don't - trust me). If they (ever) WOULD read one they'd go on YT or a page they're interested in.
People here keep forgetting: Nowadays EVERYONE can be (and often is) a critic. People usually chose a critic they like/trust and often represents them. That's natural.
BL is specifically talking about young girls of color. Well, those girls especially would not read a review mind a review from an old white dude. That just doesn't happen (ever met a young girl?). As I wrote before: they want to watch a movie because it looks fun to them. Basically you could say: A young POC girl is not the old white critic's demographic (hmmm... where do we know that from?).
So BL's whole point becomes moot and appears actually - you guessed it - political. And yes, it is politic. Why? Have you checked where it happened when she said it? It was a Woman in Film event. WiF (which btw I'm a member and supporter of - I attended several of their smaller events like "Let's do lunch" and so on - yes, I was in the film business) is a political sub group in the film business. Their agenda is to include women as equals in the male dominant movie business which I, again, totally support.

reply

"The issue here is (apparently) that POC are not represented. Then you name several magazines that represent POC."

This is like asking how prejudice can exist when there are examples of successful black people, women, etc. Nothing is all-encompassing and individual examples are NOT the general trend.

Just pretending something doesn't exist... does not change anything.


"I just added other options by mentioning YT"

Brie works in an industry and was discussing THAT industry. Amateur Youtube reviews are not part of that industry, and professional movie critics STILL EXIST. Brie was talking about professional critics.


"People here keep forgetting: Nowadays EVERYONE can be (and often is) a critic."

I don't think it's forgotten. Malkovich and I already beat you to bringing this up in this topic, in fact I beat Malkovich to the punch at the exact time he was going to bring it up.

I for one celebrated the rise of amateur critics, and noted that Brie's speech was a bit old-school and not as forward-thinking as it could have been.

In fact, here, since I know what to search for on this page:
https://moviechat.org/nm0488953/Brie-Larson/5cc2034694ce82435392bf94/Reposted-from-Captain-Marvel-My-confusion-about-raging-antifeminist-incels?reply=5cc5fbb23b3a97298011d842

reply

Your secondary part is totally out of line btw. I never said a black teen can go elsewhere. I said she has the choice and will clearly not choose the old white dude if she ever read one. I thought this whole conversation is about HAVING more PoC critics and when someone says they have the option (once again: option!!) to go to one of those it's suddenly like segregation? But BL doesn't want them to have that option. She wants to have only PoC as critics for them since white dudes shouldn't be the critics for those movies. She's basically saying there shouldn't be white critics for a PoC movie. She's saying "go to the black critic... Not to the white critic. That review isn't for you. So you're basically disagreeing with BL.
I can't address the history of this nation since, as an immigrant myself, I don't think I actually can and should. All I want for her is to talk about INCLUSION not EXCLUSION. And most of my PoC friends (which are not just a few) think the same way and they don't even want her to talk for them since "that is not her place" (quote a black friend).
Go to the video and read comments by PoC. Many of them also feel belittled and even offended by what she said.

reply

"All I want for her is to talk about INCLUSION not EXCLUSION."

She did, that's all she was talking about. You're obviously lost in bias and you refuse to see the obvious comparison between "go find black critics elsewhere" and "go find a black drinking fountain elsewhere."

You seem to have no awareness that the rise of amateur critics is largely in reaction to the side industry of professional critics... A reaction that mirrors Brie's speech.

You're not arguing against what she said, you're arguing against a specter that you refuse to drop, possibly because you don't want to accept that you either went with the "anti Brie hype" or that you didn't understand her industry-catering speech.

reply