MovieChat Forums > JustinJackFlash > Replies
JustinJackFlash's Replies
Imagine being a grown man or woman and being obsessed with films about superheroes or spaceships or cyborgs or aliens or fast CGI cars that defy the laws of gravity while bald musclemen hit each other.
Our maths is different because you are only counting African Americans as people of colour. The term "People of Colour" refers to any ethnicity other than whites. Which would be 27.6% and make 165 on an average film set according to Wikipedia's statistics. Though I don't trust any statistics.
I don't understand why you are only counting African Americans in your calculations because Thompson didn't specify only black people.
I do 100% agree that they should focus more on why there are more white men in the movie industry. Is it because of a lack of education and opportunities for minorities? And I think it's possible there are less women involved because it's just an area that women are less interested in. When I was on my film course at University there was about 200 guys and only about 15 girls.
Though you're far from the only one that does it, I'm not a fan of dismissing all "liberal types" into this one camp. Because I've always been a liberal and it's only recently that the easily offended and over the top PC preachers have taken things to such extremes under the name of liberalism. I don't see them as liberals because they are very controlling. And control is not what the word liberalism means. There should be a new political term to describe them.
Good point. That's certainly the strongest argument for Thompson's detractors on this board so far. I didn't think I could come up with a counter argument.
But I did and when it came to me it actually seemed a lot simpler than it first appeared.
I'll start by saying that statistics are unreliable and can be adapted to fit different arguments. When I googled it I got different figures to you.
According to Wikipedia the percentage of whites in the US is 72.4%. Black and African American is 12.6% and the largest group of ethnic minorities is Hispanic and Latino Americans with 16.3%
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States[/url]
Well over a quarter of Americans are not white.
Things are all a matter of perspective. The average amount of people on a movie set is 588. So reflecting the reality of America would mean that we would see 165 people of colour on a movie set and 294 women. That's something that you would notice.
Even if you only have a small indie crew of around 20 that's 5 or 6 people of colour and 10 women. That would look diverse.
But as I say, statistics are sketchy so I'd say both our arguments are unfortunately invalid.
To clarify: I'm also not a fan of the excessive PC attitude we've been saturated with and has us all treading on eggshells or the patronizing way issues of race can be often be dealt with. But I'm certainly not against diversity either.
You may be right and there may be thinly-veiled hatred and contempt behind Thompson's words, but as of yet, in the words she has used, without hearing the tone of her voice, there is no evidence of that. "Reading between the lines" isn't evidence here and assumptions are being made of her intent. She even goes on to clarify by saying that she wants the film set to reflect reality. If there really is contempt behind her words then the article wouldn't have needed to adapt her words for the title. If you are correct and she really is as you say, then at some point she will slip up.
But the more important and bigger picture is that if every celeb or person that says something pro-diversity is criticized in a harsh way then it means that what you and others are saying will be ignored and dismissed. The kind of excessive PC people who need to hear and think about what you and others suggest will have the excuse to brand you as right wing extremists and put their hands over their ears. And all that will be achieved is arguments with no "side" listening to each other.
The thing is, most of the people who say these things are not right wing extremists. Some of them may be but I think most aren't. I don't know you so maybe you are but I'm going to assume for now that you are not. And I think if you and others hold off and apply what you have to say at the right moments in a diplomatic way you will be taken more seriously and it will be much more beneficial. Because the two "sides" simply at each others throats doesn't achieve anything.
That's the reason I bring up Brie Larson's comments. Because that was clearly the right situation where the error is right there in her words. You don't need to read between the lines.
The title of the article has twisted her words. She said "I don't want to show up on set and see just a bunch of white people". Which is a completely fair thing to say. That word "just" is a strong word and can completely change the meaning and intent of the sentence.
What she said is nothing like the kind of thoughtless idiocy of Brie Larson's infamous statement. Who basically said that white men have no right to have an opinion on a film about black people.
Criticism where criticism is due but we live in a culture now where words are being heavily twisted to fit political agendas. And both "sides" are guilty.
Again interesting, I agree with some of your assessments but I don't think it's one or the other. I think we're both right.
Yes, the men suffer too. But feminists have always claimed that the patriarchy affects both genders but it's men who are ultimately responsible for it.
Mrs Waterford is the embodiment of how many feminists view any woman who may have said anything even slightly negative about feminism. They are viewed as gender traitors. Feminists have never listened to any of the criticisms these people express regardless of whether they have merit or not. They demonize them and see them as brainwashed by the patriarchy. And thus, Mrs Waterford. A creation. The boogey(wo)man of feminists. Her views and policies so undisputably evil that she even says in season 1 that she believes all women belong in the kitchen. The reason she is a political figure complicit in the creation of the show's dystopia is because her views have been institutionalized in her by the patriarchy. Or brainwashed as I said previously.
As for what Emily said to the student. What you say is interesting and I agree that is what was intended. But the writer could have chosen a number of different social situations. The one that was chosen was themed by male entitlement. So I think we are both right.
I like that the show encourages men and women working together as a solution. I like many things about the show. As a show about the politics of a totalitarian dystopia I think it's very good. And how religion can be used in politics to get a society to do some shocking things. But I think season 2 is an example of one of the categories you talked about earlier: it's a good show but a bad feminist show.
The first two thirds of your post I wouldn't argue with. No, of course things aren't black and white and feminism in film exists on a spectrum. And of course, in my OP I am simplifying and sensationalizing. But people can easily see that and it's pretty clear what I'm actually asking- Is the film natural and organic or constructed and forced. Why didn't I phrase the question differently? Well because if I had gone into all the diverse forms of feminism in film like you have in my opening post, it would be too long and no one would have read it. Now we're further down the thread it's easier for these kinds of ideas to come out.
I would have to disagree with your last bit though. And it's funny you should mention The Handmaids Tale because I'm currently watching season 2 and it's this that was fresh in my mind when I wrote my OP. Season 1 is (mostly) fine but season 2 is not based on the book as (Game of Thrones style) they ran out of material to adapt. And it shows.
Pretty much as soon as the season begins there's a pre-dystopia flashback scene set in a college lecture hall. Alexis Bledel is giving a lecture. When she finishes a female student points something out. A male student then calmly corrects her, without interrupting and in a completely polite conversational manner. Bledel then politely tells him that actually, no, he's wrong and the girl is right. The whole interaction is totally normal, everyone is happy and no-one is upset. We then cut to after the lecture and Bledel is frantically chasing the girl down. When she catches her she "heroically" tells her "Never let a man correct you". And I cringed.
And the whole season is full of this kind of stuff. The women suffering is turned up to 300. We get frequent scenes of women doing forced labour as their skin melts off. And the whole situation is a metaphor for the patriarchy. Mrs Waterford represents that "evil" woman that is brainwashed by the patriarchy into oppressing her own kind.
I don't actually mind women besting men in fights in films. We frequently see men going up against men twice their size in cinema so I don't think a woman beating a man is any more ridiculous. And I do enjoy Atomic Blonde and Kill Bill. It's that whole underdog thing.
The Night Comes For Us was such an absolute blast. I hope Netflix makes more films like that.
[quote]They're far more interesting than modern feminist movie female characters, that seem a bunch of spoiled empowered brats.[/quote]
Yes, they complain about women being stereotyped in film but are only replacing them with a new form of stereotyping.
It's a tv show not a film. It's on Netflix. But be warned, it is very slow.
hahaha!
Godless was awesome.
[quote]you didnt explain that your new thread was a general open letter to those saying its a feminist film.
Who were these people? perhaps you should have replied directly to their assertion that it was feminist film rather than hoping they will find your post here.[/quote]
Well, because it's also a question to the critics and lovers of the film who are heralding the film as feminist.
I'm interested in knowing what both these opposing groups of people think when confronted with the idea that the issue isn't black and white. So my question was designed to challenge both camps.
And I think these people are finding my post. There are not that many other threads on this board so it's hard for them to miss it.
And I do like the suggestion that it's just a film about women by a woman. But I'm also curious as to the type of person Olivia Wilde is in this area. Does she preach femininity or embrace it. And people seem to be saying different things about the film so I guess I can only make my judgement when I see it myself.
Thanks for the considered response.
I certainly don't think that it's wrong to overtly explore these socio-political notions in films. But I think the problem has become that it's done in every other film that comes out these days. If it was just done every now and again you could think about these notions and consider the points the piece is trying to make. But because we're so bombarded with it it comes across as preachy.
As with women, I think that gay people or ethnic minorities are best represented in films as just natural, realistic, normal people with diversities of personality as opposed to existing in the piece as a political statement (which can be just as guilty of stereotyping as the conventions they are trying to abolish). That's the true way to equality and acceptance.
Alas, this is why a polite, balanced discussion on gender equality can never be had. And unfortunately why it's difficult for gender equality to make any progress. Because people from both sides will resort to this kind of black and white statement.
And it shouldn't even be about sides. Because things aren't that black and white.
I'm looking forward to Booksmart. The five star reviews have got me excited. Because I do like seeing well written, natural films about women because they have been badly represented in the past.
As for feminism? I do agree with some things the movement says today and disagree with other things. Because, as I said, things aren't that black and white. I do tend to disagree with their methodology and think it is more harmful to women rather than helpful. And no movement or political theory is beyond reproach.
There seems to be a lot of hate for this film on forums from people attacking it because it's feminist. And my opening question is a response to that. I'm asking "Well, which type of feminist film are you saying it is?"
How else am I supposed to ask it?
And yes, I was predicting replies of this ilk and I'm sure it won't be the last. I would like to have a polite discourse on this kind of matter but I don't think it's going to happen.
[quote]What you are describing here is NOT a "feminist film". It's just a good film.[/quote]
I would agree with this to an extent. But I'd also disagree to an extent. This type of film is clearly beneficial to representation of women and women in general. It may have been intended as a feminist film by the filmmaker or it might not. What is clear is that the media and reviews and the feminist movement will herald such films as feminist films. You could say that they have hijacked it but that's a different debate.
Booksmart is a film that has been cheered in reviews as a feminist film. Forum threads seem to be describing it as such, one thread is even titled. 'Olivia wants you to support her film to support women as it's failing'. So I guess I'm asking what they all mean when they describe it as feminist. Because I do want the film to be good.
I believe it's a bit of both. There are other books Martin has written set in that world and I think parts of them are being incorporated and parts are being written by Goldman and Martin. But don't quote me on that.
Possibly the best way to go about it. Though if it's as slow as GOT initially was and does things the right way till the end we'll probably all be collecting our pensions by the time we indulge. And thus struggle with keeping up with the dense plot due to Alzheimer's or dementia complications.
Not to mention that by that time Facebook and the internet would have developed to such an extent that all spoilers would be beamed directly into our heads as soon as we wake up each morning.
Yeah, I agree with Orcsquisher too. It was too neat. But generally the major events- Danearys going nuts, Bran becoming king and the birth of democracy I would have been fine with if they were properly developed.
I'd have preferred exactly the same ending. But properly developed over time.