I'm aghast. A positive review for Jack the Giant Slayer. And he walked out of Oz.
Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
Also: He's against gay marriage which makes him a bad person amirite
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'm aghast. A positive review for Jack the Giant Slayer. And he walked out of Oz.
IIRC Jack was mostly a lukewarm review.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Eh. He's entitled to his opinion.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Everyone is. It's kind of hard to give an objective review when you walk out 30 minutes in, though.
Complaint: The main character was unlikeable.
Hmmm....yes, at the beginning. That's the point of a good story. Character growth / change. Imagine that, starting a movie off with an unlikeable main character, only to have him redeem himself. Pretty radical idea, I guess.....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Make sure that you don't see it. Or walk out before it gets going. So that you really have something to post about.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
you should watch every movie sam
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Actually, the part (same article as the Jack story) where he goes off on a rant about seasons and astronomers is just pretty horrible in general. Basically because he decided to think about something, thought it made sense to him, and didn't think to check if it was actually true.
For instance:
quote:As far as astronomy is concerned, there are no seasons -- seasons only have meaning on the surface of an inhabited planet, of which we have only one example. Seasons are not the business of astronomy.
Granted, I work in planetary astronomy. Off the top of my head, I have heard the terms terms equinox, solstice, summer and winter bandied about for Mars, Saturn, and Pluto. And if you understand the astronomical definition of a season, ring plane crossing, I have friends who work on modeling the climate of other planets.
So did a planetary astronomer tell you they were not in the season business?
Also this:
quote: Maybe we came to rely on astronomers to define seasons when we first realized that south of the tropics, seasons were flipped, and it took astronomers to explain it.
No. Pretty much anyone who has watches the sun set (and rise) throughout the year (and you know, makes a record of the event, and then goes back and looks at it) knows how to define the seasons, astronomically speaking. Including people who had no clue the earth was round. Or ever travelled more than 50 miles from where they were born.
Also, did you know there is a limit to how many wallbashes you can put in a post?
quote:And second, the astronomical events are only tangentially tied to our seasons.
No. Axial tilt is the reason for the season. It's not just atheists being jerks. Everything else is noise and thermal inertia that goes atop the underlying pattern of day length and solar flux (why you need to know trig) caused by axial tilt! Tangential my butt. The weather would not be warmer in the summer and colder in the winter if there was not axial tilt. The solstices and the equinoxes mark when the sun has switched sides and changed direction.
Also, your flowers probably bloom around the same calendar date every year. Photoperiodism is interesting stuff. You can fool plants though if you know how they work. We learned about it in high school science class.
EDIT: I don't speak English well when I rant.
[ March 27, 2013, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Make sure that you don't see it. Or walk out before it gets going. So that you really have something to post about.
My review of Oz: MAN this sure was a movie I watched the opening credits of. I was so incensed by this movie's use of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE in text form that I immediately exercised my right as a FREE AMERICAN to walk right back out of that theater and write an article about Oz. Oz is a movie that contains CHARACTERS and a SETTING. It was probably displayed in a room I was NOT IN, where they probably attempted to set a TONE and work a scenario involving a PLOT to a sort of CLIMAX and RESOLUTION. I would not know myself because I was in the lobby berating a 17 year old theater employee. My drink was a coke with LIME FLAVORING that I got at one of those NEWFANGLED MACHINES THAT THOSE FANCY PLACES HAVE. Like the Century 14 I go to and pay FOURTEEN DOLLARS just to go see some CGI punting like that OTHER MOVIE we almost forgot about called like the ROODS or the CROODZ or something which is about CGI neanderthals who go out of their cage and discover that THE ACADEMY AWARDS AND THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE ARE TERRIBLE AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM INSTEAD. They think they are so smart let me tell you how they are really not smart, I do not like them. In conclusion Oz was a movie, in theaters.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Like for serious now I legitimately had no idea what he was on about with the astronomy and seasons thing. I was all like "Yeah, I am not really on the staff of the farmer's almanac but I really do not think any of this is true, it does not make sense, where .. where is this coming from, what .."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Wow, I did not read it as a rant against science and complaints of Godless-heathens taken away people's rights to define seasons. It seemed like he was making a pretty simple point that seasons as they relate to various activities change from location to location and year to year. Basically that it's planting season when it's consistently warm enough and jacket-season when it's cold enough.
Hobbes Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I'm aghast. A positive review for Jack the Giant Slayer. And he walked out of Oz.
IIRC Jack was mostly a lukewarm review.
Yeah, I kept waiting for it to become positive based on Aros's post. Never did.
As for the seasons talk, I have no idea what that was all about. The "point" he made was no real point at all. It's not as if people in tropical countries/places talk of having 4 seasons, or as if seasons are somewhat imposed by law...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the issue is stuff like this:
quote:When did we decide to let the astronomers coopt the names of seasons?
how do you mean?
quote:As far as astronomy is concerned, there are no seasons
that's not true?
quote:Let's just admit that calendaring is pretty arbitrary.
ok? you mean especially the calendar we use now, as designed by a church?
etc
in the process of its meandering it says some weird things which need clarification and qualification and is fairly nonsensical in regard to astronomical realities that lead to the general classification of seasons, and .. yeah.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i think i will start my own review article. I will begin and end it this month with "maybe people should not see Jack or Oz"
Make sure that you don't see it. Or walk out before it gets going. So that you really have something to post about.
My review of Oz: MAN this sure was a movie I watched the opening credits of. I was so incensed by this movie's use of the ENGLISH LANGUAGE in text form that I immediately exercised my right as a FREE AMERICAN to walk right back out of that theater and write an article about Oz. Oz is a movie that contains CHARACTERS and a SETTING. It was probably displayed in a room I was NOT IN, where they probably attempted to set a TONE and work a scenario involving a PLOT to a sort of CLIMAX and RESOLUTION. I would not know myself because I was in the lobby berating a 17 year old theater employee. My drink was a coke with LIME FLAVORING that I got at one of those NEWFANGLED MACHINES THAT THOSE FANCY PLACES HAVE. Like the Century 14 I go to and pay FOURTEEN DOLLARS just to go see some CGI punting like that OTHER MOVIE we almost forgot about called like the ROODS or the CROODZ or something which is about CGI neanderthals who go out of their cage and discover that THE ACADEMY AWARDS AND THE HOLLYWOOD ELITE ARE TERRIBLE AND I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM INSTEAD. They think they are so smart let me tell you how they are really not smart, I do not like them. In conclusion Oz was a movie, in theaters.
You can definitely feel the generation gap when you read his reviews. It's a wonder he hasn't kicked anyone off his lawn yet.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Complaint: The main character was unlikeable.
Hmmm....yes, at the beginning. That's the point of a good story. Character growth / change. Imagine that, starting a movie off with an unlikeable main character, only to have him redeem himself. Pretty radical idea, I guess.....
(The following is about storytelling in general, not Oz, which I haven't seen)
No, I think it's pretty important that the audience likes the main character (or at least one important character) throughout. Yes, it's a well-honed tradition to have protagonists experience character growth through the story, but if you don't care about the character in the first place, it's hard to care about that growth.
You can (and should) start out with a flawed character, but that doesn't mean you have to have a shallow character. If it's clear that the character's motives are selfish and unsympathetic, the the point where you don't want the character to succeed, you have not built a strong flawed character. I'd rather be able to have a sense that there is something human in the flawed protagonist than wait for the story to force him to grow up a bit.
That's not to say that characters who start out fundamentally unsympathetic cannot redeem themselves. The character of Charles Winchester on M*A*S*H comes to mind: he starts out as irritatingly dismissive, elitist, and abrasive. I tolerated him in his early appearances only because the actor delivered his lines with great timing and finesse, such that it was a relief that at the very least the character wasn't a stupid, shallow chew-toy like Frank Burns. But when he started experiencing growth of his own – defending a stutterer, comforting a pianist who lost his arm, growing fond of the Korean musician prisoners, anonymously donating to an orphanage, relating with Hawkeye's experiences with his father – he became one of the best characters on the show, no longer an outlier along the strong characters of B.J., Potter, and Hawkeye. But I wouldn't have tolerated the show in general if there weren't already other sympathetic characters to pick up the slack.
You have to be able to latch on to something about a character to say, "I care about what happens to this person," to suspend your disbelief long enough to let their character growth become apparent.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
you can care about what happens to a character you don't like.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I can't find the Oz review. It's not part of the most recent review. Was it taken down, maybe?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: You can definitely feel the generation gap when you read his reviews. It's a wonder he hasn't kicked anyone off his lawn yet.
i haven't even really read the review, that's just me creating a parody of the sorts of reviews you get by people who are the type to walk out of a movie and review the movie they didn't watch
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How very meta.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I can't find the Oz review. It's not part of the most recent review. Was it taken down, maybe?
His reviews are all published first on the website for the Rhinoceros Times, a strange Southern conservative paper. They're published here haphazardly and frequently (exceedingly) late. I think they're four articles behind.
quote:Originally posted by OSC: Every lie he told was obvious – he showed us (and therefore the other characters) that he was lying. This is how you act and direct farce, pointing to every artifice. But wasn't the point of this to bring the Wizard to life?
He would have seen, had he watched the rest of the movie, that this was on purpose. Oz was a hoax, a sham in the real world. It WAS obvious to everyone. But some people still loved him, some still believed in him.
In the land of Oz, he could finally become not a great man, but a GOOD man. He could earn people's respect without lying or being a weasel.
Kind of one of the running themes....
Maybe the one thing that acted toward the film's detriment for OSC and some of the critics, is that the movie was played very over the top. Franco's performance was VERY hammy. But my impression is that Sam Raimi (director) was hearkening back to his Evil Dead / Army of Darkness motifs. I thought it was a strength, not a weakness. Heck, I'm pretty sure he recreated his demon witch from Army of Darkness. I wonder if Disney figured that out?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oz is a pretty bad movie, but for different reasons than have been discussed.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Wow, I did not read it as a rant against science and complaints of Godless-heathens taken away people's rights to define seasons. It seemed like he was making a pretty simple point that seasons as they relate to various activities change from location to location and year to year. Basically that it's planting season when it's consistently warm enough and jacket-season when it's cold enough.
Hobbes
This was my read too. The rants in this thread have left me scratching my head.
Hey, that sort of rhymed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
by rant do you mean people mostly saying it does not make a lot of sense to them
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: oz is a pretty bad movie, but for different reasons than have been discussed.
Why is this? I'd be interested to hear.
From an entertainment perspective, I rather enjoyed it. It was a very pretty movie. I laughed, quite a bit, throughout. The ending wasn't the average "giant battle" ending that we see so often these days. And both the script and acting, at times, rose a little above the standard popcorn fare being dished out at the cinemas.
Sure, compared to The Wizard of Oz, it was fluffy crap. But the 3D was fun. There were a lot of cool "shout outs" to the original, and it was certainly superior to similar Disney flicks (Alice in Wonderland). And Raimi put a lot of interesting shots and made some interesting directing decisions.
Depending on someone's expectations, I can certainly see it receiving a negative review. But regardless of flaws, it had an awful lot going for it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Though Baum brushed off claims that Oz was at all political, he made a decided choice to make women front and center of the series. They're princesses, ordinary farmgirls, witches (both good and bad), rag dolls, generals, pastry chefs, and problem-solving faeries. They have adventures, lead search parties, rescue one another, solve difficulties, and challenge the Nome King in combat. Perhaps most significantly, none of the characters -– not Ozma, Glinda, Betsy or Dorothy –- ever engage in romantic relationships. Baum made a point of avoiding such trappings as love interests, because he believed children would find passionate romance boring, and an emotional element which they wouldn't truly understand. Perhaps there was a personal element in this as well, as Baum, conscious of what Maud sacrificed in order to marry him, allowed his heroines perpetual youth and personal freedom.
With such a rich tapestry on and off the Oz page, it's depressing that 2013 finds our return to Oz burdened with a reluctant hero (the dominant kind in the 21st century), and not one of Baum's plucky young heroines. In a bitter reversal of Baum's stories, "Great and Powerful" casts the women as the sidekicks, standing by to aid the Wizard should he need it. No longer instigators of action, the witches Glinda, Theodora, and Evanora now clasp their hands at arrival, thrilled the prophesied hero has arrived ("Aren't you the great man we've been waiting for?" asks Theodora, voice trembling. Actually, all the female dialogue seems to be on the wobbly verge of tears). Whereas Baum's charlatan Wizard accidentally became ruler of Oz, making a mess of things in the process, now we have one who has a place carved out for him, and is hailed as the man "who can set things right" (silly witches, always making a mess of their kingdoms!). Who knew three sorceresses –- who were all-seeing and all-knowing in prior Oz tales -– were actually helpless compared to a man from Kansas? And helpless against him! Yes, Michelle Williams' Glinda is smart enough to see through our hero's lies and bluster, but otherwise she's completely stripped of any real agency. "Great and Powerful" corrects Baum's grievous abstinence, and reminds us all women must fall for a handsome traveler. The modern day Wizard now wins at least 2/3 of the onscreen hearts instead of being shamed as a liar.
No doubt the focus group responsible for "Great and Powerful" convinced themselves that female protagonists weren't marketable (odd coming from the studio of Disney Princesses), and that a pouty, doubting hero would draw in a wider range of moviegoers. It was probably believed no one would ever see an Oz film unless it directly tied into the version they already knew and loved, and that trying to draw on original Oz tales would be too confusing and difficult. Audiences can follow along with Marvel and Tolkien, but the origin of Ozma would undoubtedly be too complicated. Why bring in Betsy and her mule, when we can have a Hollywood hunk on the poster, and witchy cleavage at the denouement?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: by rant do you mean people mostly saying it does not make a lot of sense to them
Mostly I was thinking of theamazeeaz's post, but didn't want to call them out by name. Because their name is hard to remember and spell correctly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Everyone is. It's kind of hard to give an objective review when you walk out 30 minutes in, though.
You're talking about a person who regularly posts vitriolic reviews of films he has never seen. Objective doesn't even factor in.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: groan
Very substantive. I am proud of these posts.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're talking about a person who regularly posts vitriolic reviews of films he has never seen. Objective doesn't even factor in.
His constant bashing of Lincoln is particularly surreal. Especially since many of the reasons he claims it's "so terrible he'll never watch it" are based on things that don't actually happen in the movie. What's particularly frustrating is that he's probably spent a bit more than 2 hours by now writing about how terrible it is and how he will never watch it - effectively wasting more time than, you know, just watching it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're talking about a person who regularly posts vitriolic reviews of films he has never seen. Objective doesn't even factor in.
His constant bashing of Lincoln is particularly surreal. Especially since many of the reasons he claims it's "so terrible he'll never watch it" are based on things that don't actually happen in the movie. What's particularly frustrating is that he's probably spent a bit more than 2 hours by now writing about how terrible it is and how he will never watch it - effectively wasting more time than, you know, just watching it.
Pretty sure he only says that he hates Spielberg movies, especially historical ones, and that he didn't like the voice.
I don't think he says much else about the movie.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What are the cliff notes to Card's opinion of Lincoln?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
BB basically said it.
He hates Spielberg and Day-Lewis, and thinks he was miscast. And he hates historical movies in subjects he's knowledgable of, especially Spielberg ones. That was basically it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Maybe? Maybe not. Here's what he says:
quote: Originally posted by OSC: It also didn't help that Daniel Day-Lewis's makeup looked almost as rigid and masklike as the hideous big-face makeup Dustin Hoffman wore at the end of Little Big Man. Day-Lewis is as cold an actor as ever existed; Lincoln himself was a warm and funny man, even in the midst of adversity.
Except for a vague physical resemblance (obviously you can't cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lincoln), I can't think of many worse casting decisions. People say he's brilliant in the part, but knowing who created the script, I fear that the more convincing his performance, the falser the understanding of Lincoln in the minds of people who watch the movie.
So, I originally read "Cold" as a purely negative descriptor, but perhaps not? In hindsight I can interpret it other ways.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]Pretty sure he only says that he hates Spielberg movies, especially historical ones, and that he didn't like the voice.
I don't think he says much else about the movie.
Bleh...
quote:Though I've seen enough of Daniel Day-Lewis's performance to know that he completely missed Lincoln's voice (even when he orated, Lincoln never sounded like an orator; Day-Lewis's every word sounded engraved on stone)
Most of Lincoln has DDL talking in a folksy, conversational tone, telling jokes, etc. There's one speech at the end, and a handful of times where he orated for effect ("I am the president of the United States, clothed in immense power!"), but those are pretty much word for word quotes... heck, even the flag raising "speech" demonstrates the opposite of what Card is saying.
But the quote I'm talking about is:
quote:...When you add to that his penchant for the cheap pandering ending, I know exactly what Lincoln is. They will pretend that Lincoln wrestled with issues about which in real life his vision was clear; they will pick villains and lie about them; they will pretend that the Right Thing happened in spite of the people who actually brought it into being; and at the end we will be expected to respond with cheers and tears.
You've seen the movie. Do you think his claim to "know exactly what Lincoln is" without having even seen the movie is accurate? Do you agree with his assessment? For example, the movie shows Lincoln has being very clear minded and forceful about his plan for abolishing slavery - to the point where he extended the war for several months and indirectly caused the deaths of thousands of people so that congress would vote to pass the 13th amendment. Do you think this movie, which is pretty much about a man who is so passionate and unwavering about his desire to end slavery at any cost, by any means, is about Lincoln "wrestling with those issues"?
I mean, there are several scenes which show him obviously sad and grieving that his actions and the war in general caused so much destruction and death, but those scenes are necessary to establish that he wasn'ta complete bastard. At no point does he actually change his mind, nor does the movie even hint he's seriously considering any course of action that would jeopardize the 13th amendment.
quote:If Lincoln wins the Oscar, it will be evidence, not the cause, of Americans' abysmal ignorance of and contempt for their own history.
Again, he judges the historical accuracy of the movie, as well as insults anyone who appreciates the movie and considers it accurate, without actually seeing the movie. How arrogant and condescending is that?
[ March 29, 2013, 06:40 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Dude, he's an AWESOME actor. He was fantastic in My Left Foot. That guy didn't just skim on the surface of the character. He DROWNED in that character. No, he grew GILLS and let the waters of the character merge with his being until they were indistinguishable. Dude is a terrific actor.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
Maybe? Maybe not. Here's what he says:
quote: Originally posted by OSC:
Except for a vague physical resemblance (obviously you can't cast Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lincoln), I can't think of many worse casting decisions. People say he's brilliant in the part, but knowing who created the script, I fear that the more convincing his performance, the falser the understanding of Lincoln in the minds of people who watch the movie.
So, I originally read "Cold" as a purely negative descriptor, but perhaps not? In hindsight I can interpret it other ways.
It reads to me as a way of inching ass-first into a condemnation of the author, in a sort of tautological origami of logic: the actor sucks therefore the film was badly made, and/or/even if the acting was good it was a bad performance *because* it was based on the writing of a bad writer and bad person.
What he really wants to say is: "I hate the person that wrote this," and possibly: "therefore I must complain about everything in it, whether that makes sense or no."
And what's more surreal about all this is that I've read the source material for the film, and seen the film, and I have to say that Day-Lewis' performance captures *a lot* of the wit and humor and grace of Lincoln so often mentioned as a counterpoint to his popular elementary school interpretation as a stoic old fogey.
Granted, he was still a semi-stoic old fogey in the film, but maybe that interpretation is more or less right. Lincoln *acted* the stoic old fogey for much of his political career. And I'll say as little more than an amateur actor myself: it is one thing to play a man. It is quite another to play a man, who is himself playing another role. That takes the kind of depth that can leave the passive glance with the impression that an actor is *bad* when he is really brilliant. Of course you would have to watch the whole film, and OSC is not a fan of giving things a chance.
This is of course comes with a breathless lack of irony from an author who is notoriously stingy with exposition in his own writings. It takes eons for OSC stories, especially the ones from the part of his career generally seen as of the best quality, to get going. So his intolerance of this demand for patience in others is amusing- though understandable.
[ March 29, 2013, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
I groaned too. Rather than positing an original argument, you regurgitated a feminist ranting that failed to evaluate the movie from any angle other than the self-aggrandizing perspective of the author.
Eh, it was a fun popcorn flick with (purposefully) cheesy acting that (at times) rose above expectations. As a tribute to the original film, it flunks. As a fun, family film in the dearth of early spring? A+
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Wait, does he hate Day Lewis in general?
No, actually. He also said that Day-Lewis' Oscar acceptance speech was the finest one he'd ever heard at the Oscars. He also mentioned that perhaps there was more warmth to Day-Lewis than he had realized as he enjoyed the jokes he made.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
I groaned too. Rather than positing an original argument, you regurgitated a feminist ranting that failed to evaluate the movie from any angle other than the self-aggrandizing perspective of the author.
"feminist ranting"
well then.
It is a completely legitimate charge. "Self-aggrandizing" doesn't make sense here; the decisions made in the development of this movie are a perfectly valid consideration. Moviemakers usually make the argument that it's hard to integrate women into most anything other than primarily passive or background roles when it comes to legacy adapted content, because the original content did not have female leads, usually just male leads and female background characters or Damsels in Distress and objects of desire. Oz — and the entire example of Baum's work — presents exactly the opposite situation. It was a work featuring lead female heroes. It is a noteworthy franchise in the regard that that's what Oz is about - stories of girls going on adventures and being heroes. We even managed to get that right for the movie adaptation in the 1930's. It's a shame we decided that's not marketable enough in the 2010's, we better go out of our way to make it about a guy who either (1) tames female interests or (2) turns them wicked by spurning them
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
When you think a feminist is wrong, that just reinforces that she is right.
This is the standard strategy, so I don't really blame you for employing it, Sam. But it's the reason stuff like that gets the response it did. Any argument that one might give against it just reinforces that it's actually right, and the people arguing against it are blind because they're part of the patriarchy. So... groan.
Modern feminism has worked hard at being largely impervious to criticism in exactly this way.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
So the movie casts some pretty boy actor in a wedged in role in order to put female asses in seats, and this is evil men's fault now?
Okay.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: So the movie casts some pretty boy actor in a wedged in role in order to put female asses in seats, and this is evil men's fault now?
Okay.
Agree.
Mila Kunis' lovely face was certainly a reason I went to see it. Not the only one, but definitely one reason.
I have no idea if James Franco is actually attractive or not, but such things do help put butts in seats, as you say.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"I have no idea if James Franco is actually attractive or not"
a) really? You have no idea b) why is it relevant
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
When you think a feminist is wrong, that just reinforces that she is right.
This is the standard strategy, so I don't really blame you for employing it, Sam. But it's the reason stuff like that gets the response it did. Any argument that one might give against it just reinforces that it's actually right, and the people arguing against it are blind because they're part of the patriarchy. So... groan.
Modern feminism has worked hard at being largely impervious to criticism in exactly this way.
Groan.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I think it's fair to say it's sexist. I just think it's a good movie.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "I have no idea if James Franco is actually attractive or not"
a) really? You have no idea b) why is it relevant
I rarely am able to tell if men are attractive. I guessed that Matthew McConaughey was pretty ugly in "A Time to Kill". I guessed wrong. ROFL
Why is Franco's attractiveness relevant? It matters for the same reason that Mila Kunis or any female movie stars' attractiveness matters.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: rather say a lot with a little than a little with a lot.
When this is the response it gets, it really says more than I could ever say about it, in a way which reinforces the point, sooooo
When you think a feminist is wrong, that just reinforces that she is right.
This is the standard strategy, so I don't really blame you for employing it, Sam. But it's the reason stuff like that gets the response it did. Any argument that one might give against it just reinforces that it's actually right, and the people arguing against it are blind because they're part of the patriarchy. So... groan.
Modern feminism has worked hard at being largely impervious to criticism in exactly this way.
Groan.
Quick Sam, tell us how proud you are of this post!
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
So did you get your misreading of modern feminism from Breitbart and The Tea Party, or did you culture it independently?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yo i'm going to let this spitzfest calm down in the interim, but "I think a <feminist argument> is wrong" is a long way from just going 'groan' and leaving one's position at that for a pretty valid critique of what has been done to this dude's work to make it palatable to mainstream ticketing.
Like, dan, your baseline isn't "stupid and uncritical." you are wildly capable of doing better than what you just offered me, but that's what it is. "the people arguing against it" doesn't apply here, because "groan" is not an argument. It's a tediously predictable dismissal.
I think you should come back and offer better, because I don't think you should write yourself off like you are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
(i also didn't think the movie was very good irrespective to these "uppity feminist rants" and their obviously illigitemate concerns)
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
We need to stop being so sexist, all of this catering to women by evil men is bringing the world down.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Yes Dan please make a long and well thought out argument, I am absolutely certain that Sampar will give it deep thought and a courteous reply.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and there's the spitzfest
though I am doubly amused with dan finding some sort of solidarity with tittles as well as being called "Sampar"
(of orincolo)
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
What's a spitzfest?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
And stop insulting Dan, I'M finding solidarity with HIM.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I feel responsible for this.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:So the movie casts some pretty boy actor in a wedged in role in order to put female asses in seats, and this is evil men's fault now?
Movie takes beloved stories that are known for featuring strong female characters and produces yet another movie with a male hero and somewhat useless women. Who the actor is is besides the point. You don't have to be a feminist to wonder what the hell they were thinking. Being a fan of the original novels is enough.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: So did you get your misreading of modern feminism from Breitbart and The Tea Party, or did you culture it independently?
I don't know what this means. Breitbart bitched about the media a lot, but I don't recall him having a spiel about feminism per se. Maybe I missed that?
Anyway I get this from being extremely familiar with modern feminism in various forms!
In fairness, though, the "If you disagree with me that proves I am right" argument seems to mostly just be employed by young radfems/tumblrfems/social justiciars. Typically folks born no earlier than the 80s, I'd guess.
Most women who've actually lived through a bit more real misogyny (e.g. I have a sister in her forties) are more willing to listen to potential criticisms when they voice an argument. And tend to raise arguments against things that are semi-legitimate in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yo i'm going to let this spitzfest calm down in the interim, but "I think a <feminist argument> is wrong" is a long way from just going 'groan' and leaving one's position at that for a pretty valid critique of what has been done to this dude's work to make it palatable to mainstream ticketing.
Like, dan, your baseline isn't "stupid and uncritical." you are wildly capable of doing better than what you just offered me, but that's what it is. "the people arguing against it" doesn't apply here, because "groan" is not an argument. It's a tediously predictable dismissal.
Yeah, I'll cop to that. I was posting from my phone and the groan was sincere, but it certainly doesn't count as an argument.
As for the thing that made me groan... well, I'll run down a couple reasons, but I'm going to try not to spend too much time on it. Also, I'll admit that I haven't actually seen the movie, so I s'pose it's possible the feminist critique is actually spot-on. But I doubt it.
Here's a few reasons why:
quote: Though Baum brushed off claims that Oz was at all political, he made a decided choice to make women front and center of the series.
This is a really bad start, and a warning sign. The format of the sentence indicates that the author has a hard time believing that Baum sincerely didn't intend Oz to be political. So they have a hard time believing a story featuring women front and center is not political? Yikes.
This is probably because they read political meaning into everything, and infer intent that isn't there. Not a good sign for the rest of the critique. This alone would lead me to be somewhat skeptical of their interpretation.
But there's more! They go on to write about all the changes to the characters. Interestingly, I don't think this matters much at all. I believe her. They changed the characters, making Oz a better character and the witches worse ones. Okay! So?
The writer of this critique gives no actual arguments for why the text needs to be changed to be palatable for moviegoers. Here's what she says:
quote: No doubt the focus group responsible for "Great and Powerful" convinced themselves that female protagonists weren't marketable (odd coming from the studio of Disney Princesses), and that a pouty, doubting hero would draw in a wider range of moviegoers.
It's simply assumed that this is the only plausible reason. Wow! Really? It is odd to assume this from the studio of Disney Princesses. Also in the same basic world as The Wizard of Oz and Wicked. It seems to me that audiences would have no inherent problem with female characters having a larger role.
In fact, it seems rather implausible that they would change the material due to sexism, given the above examples.
I would only accept the author's explanation for the changes if there were no other plausible alternatives. But here's another possible explanation: They wanted the movie to be about Oz. Oz, in the book, mostly just screws stuff up and is not terribly sympathetic. So they changed the material to make the story more about the titular character.
Is this what happened? Hell if I know. Don't care much either. But I don't see any argument for why the version of reality presented in the article is more plausible. And when someone is raising a fuss over a version of events they invented, with no idea how accurate it is... Yeah. That makes me groan. Especially when they trot out classic feminist hyperbole like this:
quote:Actually, all the female dialogue seems to be on the wobbly verge of tears).
quote:silly witches, always making a mess of their kingdoms!).
quote:Who knew three sorceresses –- who were all-seeing and all-knowing in prior Oz tales -– were actually helpless compared to a man from Kansas?
quote:"Great and Powerful" corrects Baum's grievous abstinence, and reminds us all women must fall for a handsome traveler.
Yeah. I don't think this article was written from a place of measured, rational consideration.
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: And stop insulting Dan, I'M finding solidarity with HIM.
This actually made me laugh quite a bit.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Just to be extra clear, if the gripe is that they butchered the source material, I'm not going to argue with it. That's sort of shrugworthy to me.
It's only when one takes it the step further and says they butchered the source material because they're a bunch of nasty sexists that I start groaning.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Anyway I get this from being extremely familiar with modern feminism in various forms!
I find myself empathizing with you quite a bit here, Dan. More than once you've been criticized or outright attacked because of something some libertarian sort said, whether they were more respectable or genuine riff raff, and you went on to explain that the person attacking might not understand the material as well as they think they do.
When you say things like 'extremely familiar with modern feminism in various forms', I think I'm feeling a lot like you do when you get tarred with the 'boo libertarians!' brush in that my response is to raise an eyebrow and say to myself, "Man, it doesn't really sound like you do!"
quote:In fairness, though, the "If you disagree with me that proves I am right" argument seems to mostly just be employed by young radfems/tumblrfems/social justiciars. Typically folks born no earlier than the 80s, I'd guess.
I mean, heck, why is this attitude being assigned some special province of newer feminists? You can find that kind of thinking anywhere, for any belief system, even belief systems that have as a central component the rejection of that kind of circular argument. Or rather, people claiming to adhere to such a system. If it wasn't your intent to discuss this as though it were particularly aligned with modern feminism, I think you might have miscommunicated.
quote:This is probably because they read political meaning into everything, and infer intent that isn't there. Not a good sign for the rest of the critique. This alone would lead me to be somewhat skeptical of their interpretation.
Eh, The Wizard of Oz was a first in American storytelling in quite a few ways, and with a little information about Baum's background-particularly his closeness with early women's suffrage activists, one of whom was his mother or aunt I believe, will shed some light a bit I think.
But the fact that this completely sails over most people's heads is rather the point, isn't it? That is, in the original Wizard of Oz film, all of the main characters are women. Dorothy, Glinda, the Wicked Witch. There are plenty of men, of course, but they orbit around the women in some way or another. Even Oz himself. Not in the usual sense either, where the orbiting takes the shape of 'waiting while the women decide which man to swoon over and marry, and when'.
Not only that, it's an adventure story. Out of curiosity, how many mainstream wildly popular adventure stories can you think of where the leading role is occupied by a female, and wasn't told in the past say twenty years? While you're struggling to get to, say, less than five, I've already reached about twenty and haven't even needed to start really thinking about it for male leads.
Given all of that it doesn't seem particularly out of bounds for someone from a feminist outlook to be a little peeved.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think the article is 80% BS. All the witches had major magic powers. Oz was just a guy with some clever contraptions. In addition, one of the witches saved Oz's life with her magic powers. I see the author carefully ignored both of those mitigating factors. Oh well. Poorly-thought-through screed is poorly-thought-through.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I see the author carefully ignored both of those mitigating factors.
Except they're not "mitigating." One of the common -- and valid -- complaints from feminists has to do with scenarios in which female characters are presented as being enormously powerful in their own right, and yet sit around and do nothing until a man with gumption and drive shows up to help them.
The "screed" is perfectly on target.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's really very simple. Women can be powerful as long as there's a man to direct them. They can talk among themselves, but only about men. They can have little triumphs and everything, but the man will save the day at the end, that's just how things work.
I don't know why feminists get all weird about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Anyway I get this from being extremely familiar with modern feminism in various forms!
What I get from this statement is probably akin to what, when you still professed support for the Tea Party as a movement, you would have gotten if I said "I am extremely familiar with the Tea Party" when I am busy talking about it as a ridiculous and regressive group. You would have thought that I was familiar with a BS crafted idea of what the tea party is, as written by its enemies.
It's the same thing here, when you are speaking to the apparent strategies of feminism, full sale. It inspires the same sort of skepticism from us that you can speak to us, on behalf of feminism, on their techniques.
quote:Yeah. I don't think this article was written from a place of measured, rational consideration.
Well, honestly, when someone is picking apart the changes that happened to Baum's source work that rendered the women into apparatuses which could be described pretty much like they are in that "feminist hyperbole," and all you needed were those instances of sardonic language to conclude the article 'wasn't written from a place of measured, rational consideration' — it indicates plainly you probably weren't too interested in considering its considerations in the first place. The initial, reflexive response of "groan" also indicated this. That's where the 'this is pretty telling' bit came from, especially when I get to watch it reduced to a "feminist rant" with "feminist hyperbole" or a "screed."
quote:
quote:Though Baum brushed off claims that Oz was at all political, he made a decided choice to make women front and center of the series.
This is a really bad start, and a warning sign. The format of the sentence indicates that the author has a hard time believing that Baum sincerely didn't intend Oz to be political. So they have a hard time believing a story featuring women front and center is not political? Yikes.
No, they don't have a hard time believing a story featuring women front and center is not political. However, pretty much anyone who has actually studied Baum and his works has trouble believing that there were no concerted political and social messages/elements in his work. Because there were. The article writer goes through a lot of this and expands on the subject conspicuously, so it doesn't need to be (incorrectly) traduced to what you're making it out to be. No, they don't think Baum's story has a large social/political message and element simply for virtue of the women being lead characters in the Oz stories.
quote:I would only accept the author's explanation for the changes if there were no other plausible alternatives. But here's another possible explanation: They wanted the movie to be about Oz. Oz, in the book, mostly just screws stuff up and is not terribly sympathetic. So they changed the material to make the story more about the titular character.
Why yes, yes they did. They changed the story to be about Oz. To accessorize this, they changed the women heroes, of Baum's stories about women heroes, and the story of Baum's Oz, to be pretty typical female movie apparatuses. And they really, really piled it on thick, especially with the new backstory of the wicked witches. The question is — do you see no validity to the observation and frustration over exactly what's been done here, both in how typically women's roles have been written, and with the added issue that this was how hollywood has concertedly rewritten a work, based on what it used to be?
Like, right now your position seems like it is summarized with "You can't prove for sure it was done with sexist intent, so ... groan, and meh."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Out of curiosity, have there been recent cases in the last decade or so where a traditionally male hero role was changed so it was a female lead, and women complained?
It seems like gender swapping in hero roles is a pretty common occurrence these days. But apparently it's only okay when it goes one way?
On the other hand, since most hero roles of the past have been men, I suppose we have a lot of ground to make up for.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It seems like gender swapping in hero roles is a pretty common occurrence these days. But apparently it's only okay when it goes one way?
It's actually relatively very rare, when we're talking adaptation of source work. And I don't think it's only okay one way. The way in which it was done here just conspicuously sucks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, have there been recent cases in the last decade or so where a traditionally male hero role was changed so it was a female lead, and women complained?
It seems like gender swapping in hero roles is a pretty common occurrence these days. But apparently it's only okay when it goes one way?
On the other hand, since most hero roles of the past have been men, I suppose we have a lot of ground to make up for.
I can't think of any, though that doesn't mean much of course.
That said for the sake of argument, let's say there had been a spate of such things...I mean alright, not necessarily good thing, but part of what makes the Oz treatment distasteful is *because* of the disparity. There are plenty of films and stories with female leads. Proportionally a tiny minority of adventure stories with female leads-with a risk-taking, world-saving, danger-defying lead.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
It's the disparity thats the bigger problem though. Whats more distatefull is the wide-spread lack of alternatives to male flagship characters (flagship characters, where the it's implied that the good side would clearly lose without them, is a trope that will never disapear). Oz, while having some exceptional elements to it, is only responsible for a portion of it. I would argue that Oz has no more moral responsibility to be counter-sexist than any other movie, even though I understand why someone would think it would.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm pretty sure that when Starbuck's sex change happened there were female fans of the original show complaining.
I´m not a great fan of the last live action Alice movie, but at least they didn't make the Hatter the main character. I was a big fan of the Oz stories when I was a littlie, I loved them for being about girls being awesome (no Aslan doesn't want girls to fight here) and this movie still has the power to make what is left of seven year old me quite cross.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I personally think the very average quality of the movie as a whole is far more disappointing than the slight offense of taking focus away from female characters.
Of course, the author of the article is a dyed-in-the-wool partisan. Little things like "good art" aren't of any real interest to someone like her. That makes it easy to nitpick a minor gender issue and ignore the disappointment of such a very blah prequel to the amazing original musical.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, have there been recent cases in the last decade or so where a traditionally male hero role was changed so it was a female lead, and women complained?
quote:It seems like gender swapping in hero roles is a pretty common occurrence these days. But apparently it's only okay when it goes one way?
On the other hand, since most hero roles of the past have been men, I suppose we have a lot of ground to make up for.
I had real trouble even thinking of a gender-swapped male role. Snow White and the Huntsman isn't a "real" gender-swap, but almost.
-------
My main problem with Oz comes a lot from my love of the books, and for some reason thinking this shlock would recreate the magic.
Which is such a bummer because Raimi is one of my favorite directors, generally his special effects have always been top notch. I had just watched Spider-Man 2, and the special effects were significantly better.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I personally think the very average quality of the movie as a whole is far more disappointing than the slight offense of taking focus away from female characters.
Of course, the author of the article is a dyed-in-the-wool partisan. Little things like "good art" aren't of any real interest to someone like her. That makes it easy to nitpick a minor gender issue and ignore the disappointment of such a very blah prequel to the amazing original musical.
yeah, we know about feminists and how their partisanship makes them blind to real art.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I personally think the very average quality of the movie as a whole is far more disappointing than the slight offense of taking focus away from female characters.
Of course, the author of the article is a dyed-in-the-wool partisan. Little things like "good art" aren't of any real interest to someone like her. That makes it easy to nitpick a minor gender issue and ignore the disappointment of such a very blah prequel to the amazing original musical.
yeah, we know about feminists and how their partisanship makes them blind to real art.
It's much the same thing when a religious extremist holds a book burning. They overreact to one very specific aspect of the art, and don't even bother to think about the overall quality or message of the work, or what it has to teach, or can be used to teach.
I still say I'm far more offended that Disney wanted a pretty-looking movie with pretty people than a worthy successor to the original film.
Look, just because a feminist put hands to keyboard doesn't mean that it's automatically worth discussing. It's a shallow article. The author knows the Oz books well, and her feminist history well. However, she apparently knows squat about film, and any article about film no matter WHAT it's about that's worth discussing should ideally be by someone who...knows film.
I'm a drummer, so I could write an article about the movie "Drum Line" that complains about the relatively low level of snare drumming by the main character. But who cares?
[ March 31, 2013, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: steven ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Seems to me that her observations are far less shallow than "Disney wanted a pretty movie."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Seems to me that her observations are far less shallow than "Disney wanted a pretty movie."
She doesn't know film. She knows her feminist history, at least a little bit, and she DEFINITELY knows her OZ books. To paraphrase my edit above, would you like to read an article (by me, or any drummer who knows little about film) about the film "Drumline", that mainly just criticizes the poor quality of the main character's snare drumming?
There's way more wrong with that movie than the snare drumming.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by T:man:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, have there been recent cases in the last decade or so where a traditionally male hero role was changed so it was a female lead, and women complained?
quote:It seems like gender swapping in hero roles is a pretty common occurrence these days. But apparently it's only okay when it goes one way?
On the other hand, since most hero roles of the past have been men, I suppose we have a lot of ground to make up for.
I had real trouble even thinking of a gender-swapped male role. Snow White and the Huntsman isn't a "real" gender-swap, but almost.
-------
My main problem with Oz comes a lot from my love of the books, and for some reason thinking this shlock would recreate the magic.
Which is such a bummer because Raimi is one of my favorite directors, generally his special effects have always been top notch. I had just watched Spider-Man 2, and the special effects were significantly better.
spider-man 2 is god awful though.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I thought Spiderman 2 was pretty good. Sure, it had some corny parts to it, but it was still one of the best comic book movies at the time.
Of course, Marvel and Nolan raised the bar when they made their respective films.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
For my money, the Batman films can't be spoken of in the same vein as any other comic book film series. I include Iron Man and all the rest.
First it's apples and oranges in terms of what the films deal with, theme-wise. Second, the quality of the Nolan series, in every other regard, is superior in every single way to any other series in that genre.
You can accuse me of being essentially a snob about how comic book movies "aren't real movies," so Nolan's Batman can't be a comic book movie in the same light. And if I'm being honest, that's exactly right.
There's an element of genre-pandering that goes on with most comic book movies that, for me, ruins the experience by taking me out of it. Every appeal to a genre fanboy that is anything other than entirely relevant and material to the film itself, takes me right out of the experience and tells me these films are for insiders, and not for me. What I loved about the Batman films, is that everything in them was totally absent of a promise that comic book insiders would be rewarded for their loyalty in the fandom. These were not movies *for* anybody- which is the best kind of movie that can be made.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I always thought Oz had a subtext of female empowerment, afterall the Witches hold the real power; Oz is just a wild card.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think it was full blown text, really.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Seems to me that her observations are far less shallow than "Disney wanted a pretty movie."
She doesn't know film. She knows her feminist history, at least a little bit, and she DEFINITELY knows her OZ books. To paraphrase my edit above, would you like to read an article (by me, or any drummer who knows little about film) about the film "Drumline", that mainly just criticizes the poor quality of the main character's snare drumming?
Man, I honestly do not know what you are on about.
1. the author has been involved in writing about film for chud, cinematical, flickcast, reel loop, the spectator, film.com, and other outlets for many years now. she expands on one (very valid) feminist complaint with an eye for the problematic female tropes in cinema, and it's "she doesn't know film."
2. it is probably likely that gender provides for a lot more significant underlying force in tropes and a generally much more significant issue of concern and consideration than drumlines are in movies
just, slightly.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, have there been recent cases in the last decade or so where a traditionally male hero role was changed so it was a female lead, and women complained?
It seems like gender swapping in hero roles is a pretty common occurrence these days. But apparently it's only okay when it goes one way?
On the other hand, since most hero roles of the past have been men, I suppose we have a lot of ground to make up for.
Doesn't need to be a case of an actual gender swap. Just a twist to the story that gives a female character a larger role than in the original story. So Snow White and the Huntsman absolutely applies. Hell, Fellowship of the Ring applies. They gave Arwen an actual scene, and something useful to do. That sure wasn't in the book.
People sometimes complain when this sort of thing is done. But as far as I've seen they mostly just complain because the source material is being changed. Not because the creators are misandrists who thought the film wouldn't be popular enough unless it pandered to female viewers.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Anyway I get this from being extremely familiar with modern feminism in various forms!
What I get from this statement is probably akin to what, when you still professed support for the Tea Party as a movement, you would have gotten if I said "I am extremely familiar with the Tea Party" when I am busy talking about it as a ridiculous and regressive group. You would have thought that I was familiar with a BS crafted idea of what the tea party is, as written by its enemies.
It's the same thing here, when you are speaking to the apparent strategies of feminism, full sale. It inspires the same sort of skepticism from us that you can speak to us, on behalf of feminism, on their techniques.
That's definitely fair. Good point! (You too, Rakeesh, you made a similar point in your post.)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Yeah. I don't think this article was written from a place of measured, rational consideration.
Well, honestly, when someone is picking apart the changes that happened to Baum's source work that rendered the women into apparatuses which could be described pretty much like they are in that "feminist hyperbole," and all you needed were those instances of sardonic language to conclude the article 'wasn't written from a place of measured, rational consideration' — it indicates plainly you probably weren't too interested in considering its considerations in the first place. The initial, reflexive response of "groan" also indicated this. That's where the 'this is pretty telling' bit came from, especially when I get to watch it reduced to a "feminist rant" with "feminist hyperbole" or a "screed."
Pretty sure "rant" and "screed" weren't said by me. But anyway...
The initial groan was precisely because of the language she used in the quotes. There is a pattern of response common to feminists about stuff like this, a sort of sarcastic exaggeration that is utterly unhelpful for any rational, critical analysis. Here's a great example of what I mean:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It's really very simple. Women can be powerful as long as there's a man to direct them. They can talk among themselves, but only about men. They can have little triumphs and everything, but the man will save the day at the end, that's just how things work.
I don't know why feminists get all weird about it.
Yeah. I utterly disagree that most writers, or most movie execs, or most people actually think this way. And I've never seen a good argument for it.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I would only accept the author's explanation for the changes if there were no other plausible alternatives. But here's another possible explanation: They wanted the movie to be about Oz. Oz, in the book, mostly just screws stuff up and is not terribly sympathetic. So they changed the material to make the story more about the titular character.
Why yes, yes they did. They changed the story to be about Oz. To accessorize this, they changed the women heroes, of Baum's stories about women heroes, and the story of Baum's Oz, to be pretty typical female movie apparatuses. And they really, really piled it on thick, especially with the new backstory of the wicked witches. The question is — do you see no validity to the observation and frustration over exactly what's been done here, both in how typically women's roles have been written, and with the added issue that this was how hollywood has concertedly rewritten a work, based on what it used to be?
Like, right now your position seems like it is summarized with "You can't prove for sure it was done with sexist intent, so ... groan, and meh."
Okay, so this is interesting. Tom and others have made some comments about Baum that I, not being a fan of Oz, didn't particularly know.
If the position is: Baum was an avowed feminist who wrote feminist work. His work was changed, so now it's not an explicit feminist story, it's just a typical movie...
Then I don't really disagree, or care, and I fundamentally misunderstood the complaint. This is much more like the type of complaint I already explicitly said made sense to me, namely:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Just to be extra clear, if the gripe is that they butchered the source material, I'm not going to argue with it. That's sort of shrugworthy to me.
It's only when one takes it the step further and says they butchered the source material because they're a bunch of nasty sexists that I start groaning.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Dan, I think you're discounting unconscious (because of cultural pervasiveness) perpetuation of harmful sexist tropes.
Here's a good example:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: It's really very simple. Women can be powerful as long as there's a man to direct them. They can talk among themselves, but only about men. They can have little triumphs and everything, but the man will save the day at the end, that's just how things work.
I don't know why feminists get all weird about it.
Yeah. I utterly disagree that most writers, or most movie execs, or most people actually think this way. And I've never seen a good argument for it.
You're right. Hardly anyone (maybe nobody) actually thinks these things out loud. But the way a ton of movies, books, and TV shows turn out is hard to distinguish from ones that would be produced by people who did think that way. There is a lot of stuff out there that fits the tropes that Chris described. Sure, it's not quite that obvious unless you're looking for it, but that just demonstrates the problem: that which is pervasive is hard to notice, and especially hard to change. Sometimes it makes you look like a raving lunatic to people who aren't looking at things the same way.
I imagine this is pretty much similar to the experience from an Objectivist standpoint when people don't seem to think they have traded away anything important in relation to an omnipresent and enormous nanny state.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Doesn't need to be a case of an actual gender swap. Just a twist to the story that gives a female character a larger role than in the original story. So Snow White and the Huntsman absolutely applies. Hell, Fellowship of the Ring applies. They gave Arwen an actual scene, and something useful to do. That sure wasn't in the book.
I don't see how this follows. In the film we're discussing, there's a complete gender swap in a series known for reversing traditional gender-hero assignments. How holding up the screen time Arwen gets in LotR, what perhaps 10m in like 450000 minutes, squares that circle isn't clear to me. Perhaps because it's nearly zero in the source material, and therefore it was in fact multiplied by an enormous amount?
quote:Yeah. I utterly disagree that most writers, or most movie execs, or most people actually think this way. And I've never seen a good argument for it.
I'm not sure if it'll just get another groan, but if this were as true as you think it was, stories passing the Bechdel test would be the rule rather than the exception. C'mon, Dan, you're asserting that movie executives don't concern themselves carefully with the usual gender roles in their intended audiences? Of course they do.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
They do, but that doesn't mean the movie is intended as a claim of an argument. I think that what Dan means by saying "think this way". They don't believe in the subliminal message being sent. And to degree Chris' post, what Dan was responding to, appears to be talking for a movie exec, in the way he or she would actually say it.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Are there other recent movies based on pre-existing material, where the emphasis was clearly changed from female leads to male leads?
I thought the Galactica example was a good one. One of the bigger shows of the last 10 years, based on a classic property, and arguably Starbucks is the character with the most screen time. Fans complained about the female Starbucks, but the complaints died pretty soon after the show actually started airing.
I would also bring up the new Evil Dead remake, where the classic character of Ash has been replaced by a pretty girl. Surprisingly, the film has been getting strong reactions from test screenings. The fans of the original have been happy so far.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well, there's God being played by Allanis Morrisette in Kevin Smith's Dogma...
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
King Arthur was changed to female in Nasu's Fate/Stay Night.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
So it could maybe be argued, that it's a lot more common to change pre-established male characters into female characters?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I love soapbox arguments.
Note: There was no change from source material. This was an original prequel to the book series -- it was not an adaption. Furthermore, male characters were the main protagonists in the later Oz novels. The books weren't a gleaming banner of feminism -- the earlier novels just happened to feature a couple major female protagonists (Dorothy, Ozma).
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"King Arthur was changed to female in Nasu's Fate/Stay Night."
Though that was because it was made as a h-game (it was only afterwards made into an anime), where the typically male viewpoint protagonist gets a harem of women for him to potentially ****.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It's still a work of literature and the original story as envisioned by Nasu had the protagonist as female and Arthur male.
Also there's always the characterization of Tohsaka whom most of the people I know who've played tended to root for her instead of Shiro; the "Good" ending for Unlimited Blade Works seems to imply you and Saber are her harem. So its not so simple.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I love soapbox arguments.
Note: There was no change from source material.
If you believe this, you're completely mistaken.
quote:Furthermore, male characters were the main protagonists in the later Oz novels.
quote:The books weren't a gleaming banner of feminism -- the earlier novels just happened to feature a couple major female protagonists (Dorothy, Ozma).
quote:Furthermore, male characters were the main protagonists in the later Oz novels.
quote:The books weren't a gleaming banner of feminism -- the earlier novels just happened to feature a couple major female protagonists (Dorothy, Ozma).
And I'll reference your same link. Not sure if you're a reader, but look at the plot summaries: - Books 7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 featured male lead protagonists. Books 2, 4, and 11 feature males in co-protagonist roles (or in the case of 2, you THINK she's a male).
[ April 03, 2013, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you don't think it's a rarity for more than half the books in a series with multiple protagonists to feature a female protagonist who isn't someone's love interest, you need to read more.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Asking astronomers whether it's spring or not is like using a telescope to watch the traffic while you drive.
An astronomer who is not on Earth could identify the parts of Earth upon which she or he would expect to find astronomical Spring, but he or she would of course note that Spring also has a biological and ecological aspect that is affected by climatic changes that are not to do with astronomical effects.
That's fine. This, on the other hand...
quote:In the days before astronomy, our English forebears divided the seasons according to what was happening in the world around them.
But this whole thing is based on the Historian Peter Ackroyd's The History of England: Foundation is flawed. I like Ackroyd's tangly prose, but he's not an academic historian-- no footnotes or endnotes on this one, no primary sources.
It is of course true that people throughout human history have no doubt used biological cues to identify when to plant crops, when to harvest them, etc. But stargazing and solstice marking--for which we have tens of thousands of years of possible history--never intended to erode nor replace this.
We recognize the equinox for the same reason we always have: it's the half-way mark to the longest day of the year, or the shortest.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I love soapbox arguments.
Note: There was no change from source material.
If you believe this, you're completely mistaken.
Sam,
This movie was an original prequel set 20 years before the first book. It's not an adaption of anything.
You said "There was no change from source material."
The character of the Wizard of Oz is significantly changed from how he was originally written by Baum.
Yes, that includes the written story about how he usurped Ozma's throne with the assistance of Mombi.
The wording "there was no change from source material" is wrong. Likewise the wording "the earlier novels just happened to feature a couple major female protagonists." Neither of these descriptions is correct, and that's what I'm showing you.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
A film that isn't faithful to a book series? Say it ain't so. It's a good thing it didn't even attempt to be an adaption of one of the books. We'd never hear the end of it.
I guess there's no value in it whatsoever. . . .
[ April 04, 2013, 09:57 AM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, just to clarify: you concede that there was a change from the source material and that the series did have a disproportionately large number of active female protagonists?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
No. The book is an original work intended to serve as a loose prequel to the original movie. Neither movie purports to be canon, and the new movie is a self-declared loosely defined prequel that only makes a small show to be faithful to continuity of the movie. To expect continuity to an obscure book series seems ludicrous to me.
And yes, the early books featured a large number of active female protagonists. I only posited that it wasn't true of the entire series -- that other entries in the series had casts that were almost entirely male.
Nothing I've said can't be readily proven. I just think that the feminism argument has no traction in this situation. The movie isn't meant to be a prequel to the book series. It's a Hollywood big budget popcorn flick, and any attempt to judge it based on extraneous merits will likely fail. As would a similar argument with most Disney "products".
Why aren't we arguing how unfaithful Disney princess movies are with regard to source material?
What a silly thread this has become.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why aren't we arguing how unfaithful Disney princess movies are with regard to source material?
Possibly because most Disney princess films are based off source material that already has many different interpretations, and the films don't radically change from many of them whereas in Oz there is a distinct change of tone and portrayal whether it's intended as a 'loose prequel' or whatnot?
Just a thought. And for the record, you didn't just say 'the later books had male protagonists', you made a clear suggestion that the early stories and their unusual female protagonists weren't remarkable after all as though they were just another feature of the stories.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:No. The book is an original work intended to serve as a loose prequel to the original movie. Neither movie purports to be canon, and the new movie is a self-declared loosely defined prequel that only makes a small show to be faithful to continuity of the movie. To expect continuity to an obscure book series seems ludicrous to me.
I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about anymore. What book is intended to serve as a loose prequel to the original movie?
And you can decide that expecting continuity to an obscure book series is ludicrous, but that's completely irrelevant to the issue that the wizard's backstory was clearly written by baum, and was significantly changed for this movie.
You are explaining reasons why there were changes from the source material, not backing up the argument that there was no change.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
Wikipedia articles were fairly interesting to read, thought.
There is no novel which would center on how the wizard became the wizard of Oz.
However, there are several Oz books where the protagonist is male. So it's not really violating the tradition of the novels to have a protagonist who is male, especially since the focus of the story is on the wizard, making him the protagonist.
Wikipedia states this about the wizard:
"The history of Oz prior to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (often called the prehistory of Oz as it takes place before Baum's "histories") is often the subject of dispute, as Baum himself gave conflicting accounts.
In The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, the title character recounts that he was a ventriloquist and a circus balloonist from Omaha, and during one flight the rope for his parachute vent became tangled, preventing him from descending until the next morning, and he awoke to find that he was floating over a strange land. When he landed, the people thought he was a great wizard because of his ability to fly. He did not disabuse them of this notion, and with his new power over them, he had them build a city with a palace in the center of Oz. He also ordered them to wear green glasses so it would appear to be made entirely of emeralds.[29] However, in the later Oz books the city is depicted as actually being made of emerald or other green materials.[11] The Wizard was a young man when he first arrived in Oz, and grew old while he was there.[40] Afraid of the Wicked Witches of the West and the East, who, unlike him, could do real magic, the Wizard hid away in a room of his palace and refused to see visitors. He lived in this way until the arrival of Dorothy in the first book.
In The Marvelous Land of Oz the prehistory was changed slightly. Glinda, the Good Witch of the South, reveals that the Wizard usurped the previous king of Oz Pastoria and hid away his daughter Ozma. This was Baum's reaction to the popular 1903 Broadway extravaganza Baum adapted from his book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, in which the Wizard took the role of the main antagonist and the Wicked Witch of the West was left out.[41]
The wizard, however, had been more popular with his readers than he thought. In Ozma of Oz, he omitted any mention of the Wizard's having usurped the throne of Ozma's father,[42] but the largest changes occurred in the next book.
In the preface to Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz Baum remarks that the Wizard had turned out to be a popular character with the children who had read the first book, and so he brought the Wizard back. During it, the Wizard relates yet another account of his history in Oz, telling Ozma that his birth name was Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmanuel Ambroise Diggs, which, being a very long and cumbersome name, and as his other initials spelled out "PINHEAD," he preferred to leave just as O.Z. The balloon part of his story was unchanged, except for the detail added by Ozma, that the people probably saw his initials on his balloon and took them as a message that he was to be their king. She relates that the country was already named Oz (a word which in their language means "great and good"), and that it was typical for the rulers to have names that are variations of Oz (King Pastoria being a notable exception to this rule)".
...There was more, but that seemed the most relevant info to this discussion.
The important thing to notice is that different novels have quite a different versions of the Wizard's backstory. There isn't much stuff that could be said to be directly canon.
I guess one thing that is canon is that the Wizard was a balloonist, a liar, and a bit of a jerk. The film seems to get these things right.
Some of the things in the new film are based on the 1939 film. For example, in the novels the the witches of east and west are not sisters. In the old film they were, and so they are in the new film.
The greatest change would seem to be, that the film changes the Wicked Witch Of The West from a purely evil person into a naive girl who falls in love with Oz, and is then corrupted into evil.
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
I think we should start giving women their own money. Like, an allowance or something. That way they'll have their own money to decide which movies to see and won't be forced to watch sexist films. Then all of these sexist films will fail, because it won't be just men deciding which films make money.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: No. The book is an original work intended to serve as a loose prequel to the original movie. Neither movie purports to be canon, and the new movie is a self-declared loosely defined prequel that only makes a small show to be faithful to continuity of the movie. To expect continuity to an obscure book series seems ludicrous to me.
And yes, the early books featured a large number of active female protagonists. I only posited that it wasn't true of the entire series -- that other entries in the series had casts that were almost entirely male.
Nothing I've said can't be readily proven. I just think that the feminism argument has no traction in this situation. The movie isn't meant to be a prequel to the book series. It's a Hollywood big budget popcorn flick, and any attempt to judge it based on extraneous merits will likely fail. As would a similar argument with most Disney "products".
Why aren't we arguing how unfaithful Disney princess movies are with regard to source material?
What a silly thread this has become.
Apparently there is another Oz movie in the works, that is actually based on a book by a relative of Baum's. Maybe you are completely confused because you heard about that movie instead. It's not out yet:
Also, because the forum is stupid, add (book) to the url.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think we should start giving women their own money. Like, an allowance or something. That way they'll have their own money to decide which movies to see and won't be forced to watch sexist films. Then all of these sexist films will fail, because it won't be just men deciding which films make money.
I think you won the thread by default, because nobody on the other side of the argument wants to get into all the tortured justifications as to why you're somehow still wrong.
And that's not to say I don't understand those justifications, or even partially agree with them. HOWEVER...my wife has her degree in gender studies from Smith, and she doesn't feel the movie has much of an anti-woman slant. She's pretty pro-feminist, too...we've definitely had our arguments over these issues before.
anyway, SMH at this thread. ROFL
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Tittles and steven can hang out in the special too cool for this thread pen we made for them. Lots of laffs for you both!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Tittles and steven can hang out in the special too cool for this thread pen we made for them. Lots of laffs for you both!
So do you not know the justifications I mentioned, or are you too lazy to type them out or look up a link, or what?
Dude, I can do this allll day. I took women's studies classes in college, I know my Michel Foucault, my Tzvetan Todorov, etc.. AND I have argued these issues regularly with my wife, who is quite a bit more well-read than I am in women's studies.
I think I can actually argue your side better than YOU can. Would you like me to help you do that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think it's necessary to come up with tortured justifications to contrast with the opinion "it's okay for this movie to be offensive to women, because women who find it offensive can not pay money to see it." Because of course that's true.
In fact, it can be true and simultaneously validate Sam and Parkour's previous arguments, in that it implicitly acknowledges that, yes, the film portrays women in a poor light -- but, hey, they should just vote with their wallets. Which is exactly what the original reviewer was suggesting, after all.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've got to admit I'm dying to hear which 'tortured justifications' are necessary to support the primary point being made: the movie portrays women in a secondary, victimized, and/or rescue-needing light (that is, sexist) and there's an extra layer of irritation given the source material.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't think it's necessary to come up with tortured justifications to contrast with the opinion "it's okay for this movie to be offensive to women, because women who find it offensive can not pay money to see it." Because of course that's true.
In fact, it can be true and simultaneously validate Sam and Parkour's previous arguments, in that it implicitly acknowledges that, yes, the film portrays women in a poor light -- but, hey, they should just vote with their wallets. Which is exactly what the original reviewer was suggesting, after all.
Her reasoning is incredibly weak, though. She'd have been better off saying "this movie isn't awesome, unlike the original 1939 one. Don't get your hopes up"...and shutting up about the feminist angle.
Why? Because most people who would be especially interested in the feminist angle are feminists who have read/loved most/all of the original Oz books. THAT'S a smaller audience than "all adults who read Jezebel.com articles and might pay to see the Oz movie".
Granted, she posted it on Jezebel.com, so it's not fair for me to act like it's for Maxim's Movie Reviews (assuming they actually exist), or whatever.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I've got to admit I'm dying to hear which 'tortured justifications' are necessary to support the primary point being made: the movie portrays women in a secondary, victimized, and/or rescue-needing light (that is, sexist) and there's an extra layer of irritation given the source material.
Rescue-needing? Oz lucked his way into the situation, then had his life saved by Glinda. The main reason he was useful in the battle was because of his fresh perspective on the situation. He was a scammer with big dreams who got lucky. The witches could have snuffed out his life at any moment. Dude, come on. Can't you do better?
Victimized? What movie did you even see?
Secondary? Maybe. But I saw a whole lot of Oz getting lucky, and succeeding through circumstance and a few tricks. I saw the witches being the goddesses of the kingdom. That's the closest thing you have to a real point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am just profoundly fascinated with 'I can argue the feminist side better than you can' and 'you're better off shutting up about your feminist angle, feminists' coming from the exact same man here.
Like above all else, even the reflexive anti-feminist dismissals, the entitling of it as a "feminist rant" or "screed" I just cannot help but be amazed at the typification of response I am seeing here.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I am just profoundly fascinated with 'I can argue the feminist side better than you can' and 'you're better off shutting up about your feminist angle, feminists' coming from the exact same man here.
Like above all else, even the reflexive anti-feminist dismissals, the entitling of it as a "feminist rant" or "screed" I just cannot help but be amazed at the typification of response I am seeing here.
Do you even know who Michel Foucault is, without Googling?
Please, Sam, I really CAN argue your side of the argument better. I'm not interested in tortured justifications, though. If the author of the article wants nobody to SEE the movie, then she's better off speaking to a broader audience, in a way that motivates them.
As far as sexist movies, there are SO many others that are SOOO much worse. I think you know that, too. It looks to me like you're just arguing because you want to win, not for any other reason. Would you say that's true?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Please, Sam, I really CAN argue your side of the argument better.
Absolutely nobody is stopping you from attempting to argue in favor of these valid feminist concerns. You are more than welcome to show us your listed feminist critical theory cred, or whatever. You have my blessing.
quote:As far as sexist movies, there are SO many others that are SOOO much worse.
There sure are, and I have no trouble talking about those too. Yet it doesn't impact the validity of these observations about the subject we are talking about now, Oz the Great and Powerful, one iota! ..Except to note the pervasiveness of limitation and typical confinement of female roles. Which, I guess, is appreciated.
quote:. It looks to me like you're just arguing because you want to win, not for any other reason. Would you say that's true?
I argue for many reasons. One can traduce those reasons down to "You're just trying to score points!" or "You're just arguing because you want to win!" but honestly as far as I am concerned, arguing the winning side is often just a side consequence of being generally more reasoning and educated and fairly often picking the correct side, and winning is just a side benefit I'll gladly take.
But telling someone that you think that they're arguing just because they want to win is kind of a pablum statement that could just as easily (and pointlessly) be levied either way.
quote: If the author of the article wants nobody to SEE the movie, then she's better off speaking to a broader audience, in a way that motivates them.
More commentary on her ends and means which speaks not at all to the validity of her statements re: the movie.
and lastly:
quote: I'm not interested in tortured justifications, though.
Okay, and you are the only one who has supposed that they are tortured justifications on her end. They really aren't!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: If the author of the article wants nobody to SEE the movie, then she's better off speaking to a broader audience, in a way that motivates them.
Frankly, I think the author was a) writing to a feminist audience; b) in a bit of univerally-applicable criticism, arguing that lazy characterization makes the film weaker; and c) also writing in hopes that people will wake up to the fact that filmmakers still have a troubling habit of turning female characters into hapless, lovelorn, and unambitious sponges, and thus -- once aware of the problematic nature of that decision and its effects on some women's self-image -- either stop rewarding such decisions with money or, if they're in a position of power in the industry, stop doing it.
She was not writing an article that sought, as its highest goal, to minimize the number of dudebros paying for admission to the film.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sam, in all my life, I've accused exactly two people of "just arguing to win." You and TomD. Take it for what it's worth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, realizing that you think winning an argument -- that is to say, demonstrating the rightness of your position to the satisfaction of the other people in the conversation -- is a bad goal to have explains so much about the quality of your arguments.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
well so much for a film making thread thanks sam
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, realizing that you think winning an argument -- that is to say, demonstrating the rightness of your position to the satisfaction of the other people in the conversation -- is a bad goal to have explains so much about the quality of your arguments.
Dude, you've never convinced me of anything. For that matter, I don't see you convincing anyone of much of anything. Not that that matters. I really don't think it's your goal.
MY goal, as we BOTH well know, is convincing hearts. I'm a salesman, a preacher, etc.. It's not what I think is the best thing to be. It simply is what I AM. I used to put on a hat and preach to an imaginary congregation when I was 4. My lifelong friends grooooaaan every time I get a new obsession, whether it's music, martial arts, nutrition, Jyotish, Alfred Hitchcock's Mystery Magazine, blah blah blah, etc.. Why do they groan? Because I do the same thing with them that I do here re: nutrition. I sell. I sell hard. I sell to people's hearts, baby.
Note that I don't think that's the best way to be. It simply is what I am, and I'm pretty sure I was born this way, because I don't ever remember being different.
I remember going on a anti-sugar campaign when I was FIVE YEARS OLD, because a dental hygienist came to my kindergarten class and talked about sugar's effect on teeth. I was deeply anti-sugar, and preaching about it, for at least 2 years. That's tough when you're a kid, too, ROFL I mean, people offer you candy, and you WANT the candy, and all the foods that are unsweetened taste AWFUL in comparison (to a kid raised on sugar).
So you see? Even the style of this post is further evidence of my basic nature.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It must be horrible to have your self-image tied up so tightly to something you're terrible at.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rescue-needing? Oz lucked his way into the situation, then had his life saved by Glinda. The main reason he was useful in the battle was because of his fresh perspective on the situation. He was a scammer with big dreams who got lucky. The witches could have snuffed out his life at any moment. Dude, come on. Can't you do better?
Yes, Glinda saved Oz's life...after he, the agent of kingdom-saving prophecy, was sent on a quest to vanquish her. He then saved her life at great personal risk to himself-not having the power of the witches-against not just a bunch of flying baboons and Winkie guards, but the two 'goddesses', so this rather balances out.
The witches could have killed him, but they didn't. Even the wicked one who saw through his sham from the start but then forgot she thought he was a con and ran away screaming. These 'goddesses' were utterly stalemated until Oz came along, effectively void in terms of impact on the setting. Then one (in the stereotypically most silly, most romance-addled rube-ish way) falls in love with him, and then in hate with him...notice how her entire life is about Oz the moment she meets him?...the other despite being a ruthless, intelligent goddess immediately fears him in spite of seeing he's a fraud, and the third is idealistically exasperated with him as the flawed agent of prophecy, orienting her goddesslike powers to whatever plan he comes up with.
Yeah, Steven, I can do better. So have other people. Name dropping and talking up your passions isn't actually a substitute for an argument, or even a rebuttal.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Rescue-needing? Oz lucked his way into the situation, then had his life saved by Glinda. The main reason he was useful in the battle was because of his fresh perspective on the situation. He was a scammer with big dreams who got lucky. The witches could have snuffed out his life at any moment. Dude, come on. Can't you do better?
Yes, Glinda saved Oz's life...after he, the agent of kingdom-saving prophecy, was sent on a quest to vanquish her. He then saved her life at great personal risk to himself-not having the power of the witches-against not just a bunch of flying baboons and Winkie guards, but the two 'goddesses', so this rather balances out.
The witches could have killed him, but they didn't. Even the wicked one who saw through his sham from the start but then forgot she thought he was a con and ran away screaming. These 'goddesses' were utterly stalemated until Oz came along, effectively void in terms of impact on the setting. Then one (in the stereotypically most silly, most romance-addled rube-ish way) falls in love with him, and then in hate with him...notice how her entire life is about Oz the moment she meets him?...the other despite being a ruthless, intelligent goddess immediately fears him in spite of seeing he's a fraud, and the third is idealistically exasperated with him as the flawed agent of prophecy, orienting her goddesslike powers to whatever plan he comes up with.
Yeah, Steven, I can do better. So have other people. Name dropping and talking up your passions isn't actually a substitute for an argument, or even a rebuttal.
And? he still accomplished most things by sheer luck. I'm not saying there's not tinges of sexism her and there, but...come on, dude. You are in the box, and I am not. Peek out for a moment. There's more to this movie than it's feminist bona fides. Remember what the thread was about to begin with?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It must be horrible to have your self-image tied up so tightly to something you're terrible at.
Well to be fair, he hasn't exactly argued that he's good at selling to people's hearts, baby. Though it is implied.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, realizing that you think winning an argument -- that is to say, demonstrating the rightness of your position to the satisfaction of the other people in the conversation -- is a bad goal to have explains so much about the quality of your arguments.
Dude, you've never convinced me of anything.
He's also never convinced ron lambert of anything. Whatever that point intends to accomplish doesn't really work, yanno.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It must be horrible to have your self-image tied up so tightly to something you're terrible at.
Self-image? This isn't something I'm particularly proud of. I didn't even realize it about myself until probably the last 4 or 5 years. I was too busy preaching and selling to ask myself "am I a preacher/salesman type?"
And actually, I am fairly good at it. I've worked in several call centers like Blayne did, where sales were a condition of employment. I was often the top salesperson on my team. Certainly never the best in the building, but always in the top 10 or 15%. And bear in mind, I was usually selling things I couldn't care less about.
I guarantee you, I could start a drumming thread that would have 5 or 6 people going out and buying drumsticks, watching youtube videos on drumming, telling all their friends about their new drumming habit, etc.. However, because that was the passion of ca. 1988 to ca. 2000, I doubt I'll ever make such a thread. Had you known me then, I'd have told you all about the awesomeness of Bob Becker, the world's greatest xylophonist (and a cool dude, too...Bob's a humble guy), preached to you the wonders of the Hinger timpani method, blah blah blah.
The whole point isn't necessarily to convince. It's an unconscious thing, almost like a compulsion. And, like I said, not something I'm especially proud of. I feel bad for having foisted my obsessions du jour on the people around me AT FULL VOLUME. It's rather gauche. A bit of a faux pas, old boy, don't you know? ROFL
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I guarantee you, I could start a drumming thread that would have 5 or 6 people going out and buying drumsticks, watching youtube videos on drumming, telling all their friends about their new drumming habit, etc.
huh. so you DO have your self-image tied up in this stuff.
I would also comfortably bet against this if it were possible to control it for purposes of a contest. I think you really overvalue the quality of your salesmanship.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I guarantee you, I could start a drumming thread that would have 5 or 6 people going out and buying drumsticks, watching youtube videos on drumming, telling all their friends about their new drumming habit, etc.
huh. so you DO have your self-image tied up in this stuff.
I would also comfortably bet against this if it were possible to control it for purposes of a contest. I think you really overvalue the quality of your salesmanship.
No, I assure you, it embarrasses me, and I find it quite awkward. It's a little like catching yourself picking your nose in public, again and again, and always forgetting that you are, now, picking your nose, about to pick your nose, etc..
It really is like a compulsion. I indulge in it still somewhat with young people, as long as I am giving factual information. Hey, they need facts, right? (Yeah, I already know, don't bother)
Otherwise, unless there are health and safety issues involved, I generally try to abstain. TRY. I'm not 100% successful. When it comes to nutrition, that's where I usually fail hardest, perhaps partially because it's a health and safety issue. I kind of have a weird personality quirk around health and safety issues. I react out of all proportion to perceived threats to my physical safety.
One of the main reasons I STARTED curbing myself is because people were always so bewildered when I dropped a specific obsession. I got tired of feeling bad about their bewilderment. They, in many cases, were getting into it (at least partly) to make me happy, because they loved me, you know? It's not cool to take advantage of that, perhaps. Even unintentionally.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ok. that's all explanatory in a very humanizing way. I don't doubt much of it. But what I interpret so far is that part of this self-image thing is not that you are struggling to control the preaching/salesmanning, but how the preaching/salesmanning is genuinely taken by others, especially when they are aware of your habits.
like would you say here that, because of your compulsion to sell/preach/convince hearts that you have here on the subject of Oz expended energy into something particularly convincing? Do you see anything here as having been good salesmanship, argumentative-wise?
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
It seems my post went unnoticed, despite it being strongly connected to many things that have been said in this thread.
I assume that people who have said that an Oz story should have a strong female protagonist, now have changed their opinion. And we can all agree that the movie can have a male protagonist instead, because that would be canon, and perfectly in line with Baum's series of Oz novels? Correct?
Also I assume that people who have argued that the film is not respecting the canon, because of changes it makes to the Wizards origin story (And the timeframe of those events), now agree that Baum himself wrote completely contradictionary versions of the events in different Oz books? And thus it's really hard to say what is canon, and what is not? And this actually gives the filmmakers a greater freedom to write their own imaginary story? Correct?
Because I don't know how you could logically argue either of those things, unless you want to argue with L. Frank Baum.
You can still argue that the female-characters in the film were too weak-willed, and maybe indeed Baum never wrote a novel with equally weak-willed female characters.
And you can still argue that the film is bad, because that's pretty subjective.
But please don't argue that something is canon, when it's not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I assume that people who have said that an Oz story should have a strong female protagonist, now have changed their opinion. And we can all agree that the movie can have a male protagonist instead, because that would be canon, and perfectly in line with Baum's series of Oz novels? Correct?
As I've heard it told to me from experts of early americana lit and Baum in particular (who have lit up at the opportunity to discuss all this, hur hur, pun intended), you could have central male protagonists easily, but ones that pulled a Lion King dynamic onto the women of the story would be completely out of character for any of Baum's books, even the ones with the male leads. Baum's portrayal of Oz was typified by having women being the effectual central driver of the resolution of plot and dynamic, and the male leads of his books were ineffectual, even if well meaning. There was probably only one real exception to this rule in the form of a boy named Ervic. And his story certainly didn't come at the expense of sponging/lionessing the women in the story, so
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ok. that's all explanatory in a very humanizing way. I don't doubt much of it. But what I interpret so far is that part of this self-image thing is not that you are struggling to control the preaching/salesmanning, but how the preaching/salesmanning is genuinely taken by others, especially when they are aware of your habits.
like would you say here that, because of your compulsion to sell/preach/convince hearts that you have here on the subject of Oz expended energy into something particularly convincing? Do you see anything here as having been good salesmanship, argumentative-wise?
You're the one selling hard in this thread, not me. You tried to sell a terribly shallow and largely irrelevant article, and I am not buying.
Here's a clue. You want to really understand where academic feminist critique is coming from? Read your Foucault. Also, read some criticisms of Foucault. This article was unable to pass muster with my wife, an intelligent woman who literally has a degree in gender studies. Take a clue from that, and actually do some real scholarship in the area.
Just because some women preach this stuff, doesn't mean you have to buy it wholesale, without examination, in order to understand women. Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically. Understanding women is something you either can do naturally, or you struggle with it, and hopefully get better at over time. I'm mostly in that second group. It sounds like you are too, although maybe I'm wrong.
Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your wealthy white male status? I can't help you too much there. I'm from an underprivileged part of Appalachia. Where I come from, the great majority of people are poor or lower-middle-class, and destined to stay that way. They might be "white", but they're not getting many of the benefits that supposedly always come with it. Neither I, nor most of them, even know any trust fund babies.
If your conscience is making you uncomfortable about your privilege, then take it for what it is.
And I don't mean that to sound as harsh as it does.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
So, um, your criticism of her article is that it doesn't concern itself enough with the social justice ramifications of portraying women as ineffectual, lovesick puppies? *laugh* Dude, you took entirely the wrong lessons from whatever conversation you had with somebody about Foucault fifteen years ago.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
So, um, your criticism of her article is that it doesn't concern itself enough with the social justice ramifications of portraying women as ineffectual, lovesick puppies? *laugh* Dude, you took entirely the wrong lessons from whatever conversation you had with somebody about Foucault fifteen years ago.
I'm no huge fan of his. He made some excellent points about the use of language in mass media by those in power to control large groups of people. Beyond that, he's not excessively noteworthy, AFAIK.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You're the one selling hard in this thread, not me. You tried to sell a terribly shallow and largely irrelevant article, and I am not buying.
I believe this is what you think, but you've come across in this thread as 'selling hard' yourself. None of us know what you selling hard *really* looks like or whatever, but it certainly doesn't look like a soft sell.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
So, um, your criticism of her article is that it doesn't concern itself enough with the social justice ramifications of portraying women as ineffectual, lovesick puppies? *laugh* Dude, you took entirely the wrong lessons from whatever conversation you had with somebody about Foucault fifteen years ago.
I'm glad that we can agree that the characterization of a single character can be taken as a broad categorization of their entire gender. So, since Oz is a man, the movie is telling us that all men are lying, egomaniacal charlatans?
Glad we cleared that up.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:You're the one selling hard in this thread, not me. You tried to sell a terribly shallow and largely irrelevant article, and I am not buying.
I believe this is what you think, but you've come across in this thread as 'selling hard' yourself. None of us know what you selling hard *really* looks like or whatever, but it certainly doesn't look like a soft sell.
I'm pretty sure you DO know what me 'selling hard' looks like. You were here for the Dr. Price threads back in 2005.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm glad that we can agree that the characterization of a single character can be taken as a broad categorization of their entire gender.
Leaving aside the question of whether the author was criticizing a single character -- she wasn't, of course; she was pointing out that all the major female characters in the film exist only to react to Oz's application of dynamic power -- I should point out that anyone who claims to understand how minority dynamics work in the media should find your complaint here ridiculous.
Consider: do you feel that it is a valid criticism of horror films (and, say, The Walking Dead TV show) that there's only ever allowed to be one black guy, and he generally dies -- to the extent that the very few horror films in which the black guy survives to the end are seen as deliberate subversions of this trope? If so, would you say that those people making this critique are asserting that the filmmakers obviously believe that all black men are more likely to die in life-threatening situations?
Of course not! The criticism is that the sample is so disproportionately small that deliberate plot-driven decisions disproportionately get applied to that population; since black guys never get to be the protagonist, they suffer more often the fates reserved for secondary characters. The women in the latest Oz film don't all fall over Oz because he's a man; they fall over him because he's the protagonist, and no one saw anything wrong with reducing them all to plot appendages who sit around waiting to react to the protagonist. That this happens disproportionately often to female characters is pretty obvious once you start looking for it, and I certainly understand why it's frustrating. (I mean, I as a fat guy certainly pick up on cases where fat men are reduced to food-obsessed comic relief.)
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm glad that we can agree that the characterization of a single character can be taken as a broad categorization of their entire gender.
Leaving aside the question of whether the author was criticizing a single character -- she wasn't, of course; she was pointing out that all the major female characters in the film exist only to react to Oz's application of dynamic power -- I should point out that anyone who claims to understand how minority dynamics work in the media should find your complaint here ridiculous.
Consider: do you feel that it is a valid criticism of horror films (and, say, The Walking Dead TV show) that there's only ever allowed to be one black guy, and he generally dies -- to the extent that the very few horror films in which the black guy survives to the end are seen as deliberate subversions of this trope? If so, would you say that those people making this critique are asserting that the filmmakers obviously believe that all black men are more likely to die in life-threatening situations?
Of course not! The criticism is that the sample is so disproportionately small that deliberate plot-driven decisions disproportionately get applied to that population; since black guys never get to be the protagonist, they suffer more often the fates reserved for secondary characters. The women in the latest Oz film don't all fall over Oz because he's a man; they fall over him because he's the protagonist, and no one saw anything wrong with reducing them all to plot appendages who sit around waiting to react to the protagonist. That this happens disproportionately often to female characters is pretty obvious once you start looking for it, and I certainly understand why it's frustrating. (I mean, I as a fat guy certainly pick up on cases where fat men are reduced to food-obsessed comic relief.)
And you don't believe that this happens disproportionately often to female characters because nearly all of the characters other than Oz were females?
It's all well and good to use a piece of media in an attempt to moralize. My only qualm here is that you're reading WAY too much into it.
Oz was a flawed character who needed to change his life. He wanted to become "good". The land of Oz was controlled by powerful women with different agendas, all nearly godlike, who were in a stalemate situation. Oz didn't have power because he was a man -- he had power because he had a fresh perspective. Yes, this is another trope, but it had nothing to do with gender.
Was the "instant love" angle a little poorly handled? Sure. Was the forced love plot merely jammed in there because it's a Hollywood convention? Of course. But there was nothing sexist about the movie, in relation to a normal mainstream release, unless you want to start painting motivations over the top of the actual characterization. But you can do that with any movie.
You want to talk sexist, look at Hunger Games, Brave, and Snow White and the Huntsman.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Can we make the argument that the original Oz was sexist? None of the men had any power -- one was without courage, one without a heart, one without brains. They all looked to Dorothy to save them. The wizard turned out to be impotent, and the only characters with any power were Dorothy and the two witches.
Or is it the newcomer upsetting the status quo trope?
Posted by Tittles (Member # 12939) on :
Don't be ridiculous. It's impossible to be sexist against men, just like you can't be racist against white people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Was the "instant love" angle a little poorly handled? Sure. Was the forced love plot merely jammed in there because it's a Hollywood convention? Of course. But there was nothing sexist about the movie, in relation to a normal mainstream release...
So we agree that there was a poorly-handed instant love angle, forced in there because it's a Hollywood convention? And agree that there was nothing more sexist about the movie than the typical mainstream release?
The difference is that you don't seem to think that's a problem. Whereas I think the fact that most mainstream releases are that sexist is in fact a problem worth pointing out, especially when it winds up inserting a sexist and unnecessary romantic subplot into a series that is notable for the opposite. No doubt someone who actually writes criticism from a feminist perspective cares even more deeply about how poorly mainstream releases do in this regard.
quote:Can we make the argument that the original Oz was sexist?
For a given definition of "sexist," sure. I don't use that definition myself, but I think there was a very deliberate decision made to make all the men largely ineffective. If you consider that sexism, that was indeed sexist.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Was the "instant love" angle a little poorly handled? Sure. Was the forced love plot merely jammed in there because it's a Hollywood convention? Of course. But there was nothing sexist about the movie, in relation to a normal mainstream release...
So we agree that there was a poorly-handed instant love angle, forced in there because it's a Hollywood convention? And agree that there was nothing more sexist about the movie than the typical mainstream release?
The difference is that you don't seem to think that's a problem. Whereas I think the fact that most mainstream releases are that sexist is in fact a problem worth pointing out, especially when it winds up inserting a sexist and unnecessary romantic subplot into a series that is notable for the opposite. No doubt someone who actually writes criticism from a feminist perspective cares even more deeply about how poorly mainstream releases do in this regard.
quote:Can we make the argument that the original Oz was sexist?
For a given definition of "sexist," sure. I don't use that definition myself, but I think there was a very deliberate decision made to make all the men largely ineffective. If you consider that sexism, that was indeed sexist.
Doesn't this essentially defang the criticism? You and Sam are preaching against this movie from a soapbox. It's all well and good to critique this movie. But the problems are relegated to a reliance on common Hollywood tropes, of which ALMOST ALL current movies are guilty.
Why prey on this specific movie? We can all cry that we wish it was somehow better (because it is Oz?), but judge it against other current movies. Judge it for what it is. It isn't an art piece, it's a mainstream cashgrab. But it's pretty well made for a Disney cashgrab. If you want to take up a crusade, there are much more worthy candidates.
And frankly, I'd say that this movie (at a few points) rises above the cliches and tropes.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Doesn't this essentially defang the criticism?
I don't see how. "This movie made a ridiculously common mistake, and it is much poorer for it, especially if you care about the frequent disenfranchisement of women" seems to me to be pretty fanged.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Here's a clue. You want to really understand where academic feminist critique is coming from? Read your Foucault. Also, read some criticisms of Foucault. This article was unable to pass muster with my wife, an intelligent woman who literally has a degree in gender studies. Take a clue from that, and actually do some real scholarship in the area.
Just because some women preach this stuff, doesn't mean you have to buy it wholesale, without examination, in order to understand women. Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
Oh my. That last part is utterly surreal in light of it coming immediately after a pliable call to authority on feminist critique. Like, you tell me about what I need to do re: foucault and then you make a statement about ~modern intellectual feminism~ that brings it into question from what authority you preach? You are, of course, still as welcome as you were before to make my argument better than I can, like you said you could, in terms of the feminist angle; i'm greatly beginning to suspect what will come of that.
quote:Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your wealthy white male status?
Ahaha. No, not even remotely.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by steven: Here's a clue. You want to really understand where academic feminist critique is coming from? Read your Foucault. Also, read some criticisms of Foucault. This article was unable to pass muster with my wife, an intelligent woman who literally has a degree in gender studies. Take a clue from that, and actually do some real scholarship in the area.
Just because some women preach this stuff, doesn't mean you have to buy it wholesale, without examination, in order to understand women. Modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically.
Oh my. That last part is utterly surreal in light of it coming immediately after a pliable call to authority on feminist critique. Like, you tell me about what I need to do re: foucault and then you make a statement about ~modern intellectual feminism~ that brings it into question from what authority you preach? You are, of course, still as welcome as you were before to make my argument better than I can, like you said you could, in terms of the feminist angle; i'm greatly beginning to suspect what will come of that.
quote:Perhaps you are uncomfortable with your wealthy white male status?
Ahaha. No, not even remotely.
Yes, I could definitely argue the other side, but Tom stepped in, and is doing well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes, I could definitely argue the other side
I simply totally don't believe you, is the issue. You would really simply have to actually do it, as opposed to devoting plenty of energy moving around fulfillment of this claim.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Yes, I could definitely argue the other side
I simply totally don't believe you, is the issue. You would really simply have to actually do it, as opposed to devoting plenty of energy moving around fulfillment of this claim.
No, seriously, Tom is doing well. There's some actual thought and content there. While my arguments might be a little more in depth, and less appeal-to-emotiony (which is hilarious coming from me, I realize), he's not failing.
I was kind of hoping somehow we'd end up arguing about cinematography, lighting, makeup, costuming, blocking, etc. as they relate to sexism in film. I know next to nothing about such things (both generally speaking, and as they relate to sexism), but I'm sure at least some people have done some thesis papers on all that. I thought that might be a fun discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:While my arguments might be a little more in depth
I'm sincerely curious about this: would you point to one of your arguments which you believe contained depth?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No, seriously, Tom is doing well. There's some actual thought and content there. While my arguments might be a little more in depth, and less appeal-to-emotiony (which is hilarious coming from me, I realize), he's not failing.
You mean where Tom echoes arguments other people have made pages ago? This is so silly it's difficult to determine if you're serious. You're criticizing everyone else and holding Tom up for example when he is reiterating what has already been said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sniffle* But... But I thought I was special. *blinks away tear*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well I didn't say you did it badly. Don't feel bad, Tom, you're a swell kid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, seriously, Tom is doing well. There's some actual thought and content there. While my arguments might be a little more in depth, and less appeal-to-emotiony (which is hilarious coming from me, I realize), he's not failing.
I'm going to repeat this very clearly: I simply totally don't believe you. Since by now you are reiterating and hedging in this particular manner, I am hard pressed to believe nearly anyone here does.
The conversation is going pretty much like this.
"I am so good at feminism. I could totally provide your side of the argument better than you are, totally."
"Ok, go ahead."
"You should read up on feminism. I'm telling you, I'd do a better job at arguing your side than you can. I have bona fides, also my feminist wife is here and says"
"Great, if you say you can, do it."
"... Well right now there's simply no need. Tom is here and he's already doing it."
"I don't believe you. You can totally prove it anytime."
" ... No, seriously, Tom is doing fine. Mine,. I'd .. I'd of course be a little more in-depth and a little bit better at it, I don't need to prove it anymore, because he's proving it for me, somehow."
"..."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
OK, fine. I guess this thread is going to become Discourse Analysis 101, then. I certainly don't know enough about the more technical aspects of film to analyze how they might be used to further various power structures, so I really can't go in that direction. That, then, leaves me with the analysis of language and how it is used to control the disempowered.
Official written policy (especially government policy) of many kinds is rife with examples of subtle low-level emotional manipulation. Word choice is especially important in subtly discouraging certain emotions and reinforcing the desired attitudes.
Many of you are probably familiar with "code-switching", where different languages, speech patterns, accents, and word choices are used in different contexts.
That page deals mainly with switching languages. However, the kind of subtler code-switching that people in this culture (and many others, no doubt) use is more about speaking in/with an accent, vocabulary, and/or tone that will make our audience more comfortable. For example, you don't use the same vocabulary when writing a research paper that you would talking to a young child. If you're from an underprivileged/uneducated area, but are yourself well-educated and literate, you almost certainly use a slightly different accent (and vocabulary) when speaking with an older, uneducated adult from your home area, versus when speaking with someone who is more your equal in literacy and education. Otherwise, you risk alienating or confusing your audience, and reducing the chance for good rapport.
Code-switching has a less-savory side, as well, when it is used specifically to create trust and rapport in order to manipulate. Sleazy salespeople are often good at code-switching. They speak to every customer with the vocabulary and accent they think will create rapport, in order to make the sale.
Government policy (and corporate policy, as well) is often written in very different language from the everyday vernacular of the person actually writing the policy. Subtle choices are made in terms of word choice and phrasing that serve to discourage negative emotions toward the policy and the government, while reinforcing specific impressions and attitudes. Governments, as well as corporations and other institutions, attempt to continually increase their legitimacy in the eyes of the public with their choice of words and phrasing.
This is by no means anything more than the most superficial treatment of the subject. Some of you probably are VERY familiar with it already, and some (especially the younger and more naive) may not have any familiarity with it. Given that, it's a little hard to how exactly the best way to address the subject, with such a wide range of experience.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Given that, it's a little hard to how exactly the best way to address the subject, with such a wide range of experience.
You could connect what you are describing to us to the subject of the movie and feminism, for starters.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, that's quite a bit more polite than what I was considering posting.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Given that, it's a little hard to how exactly the best way to address the subject, with such a wide range of experience.
You could connect what you are describing to us to the subject of the movie and feminism, for starters.
This is why I said that modern intellectual feminism is more about social justice and equality than about women specifically. Analyzing discourse works in every area. You can literally analyze every discourse ever using the same few basic questions, to find out the power relationships and the intent and nature of the innate coercion that is happening.
Of course, feminists of the academic stripe happily took Foucault's techniques and made them widely-used and famous, but that's not why Foucault created them. He was a big leftist back in the day, and his work on discourse analysis was an outgrowth of that.
It would be fairly easy to apply Foucault's techniques to the script itself. Is that what you'd like us to do here?
If so, here are a list of the basic questions you'd ask:
1. Who are the parties involved in the discourse, and which has more power? How is that power exercised, if there were a conflict between the parties?
2. If the power is held by a group, who WITHIN that group is choosing the actual wording of of the discourse?
3. What is left unspoken? why is it unspoken? Are there any implied threats? Are there any assumptions that are believed to be held in common by all involved?
4. Is there any reification happening? I.e., is anyone talking about abstract concepts like 'justice' as if they are real things that can be measured?
5. Is there any emotional language, i.e., appeal to emotion, being used? What is the goal of that?
6. What message does the writer or speaker in the discourse intend you to get from the discourse?
If we're talking about movies, and we are, things like camera angles, lighting, acting, costuming, makeup, etc. also come into play as well. I have no expertise in these areas, so that's certainly an area where I can learn a lot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, um, are you saying that it's possible to analyze the film from a different perspective and with a different focus, and that this article -- because it didn't do that, choosing instead for multiple reasons to stick with one -- is a failure?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So, um, are you saying that it's possible to analyze the film from a different perspective and with a different focus, and that this article -- because it didn't do that, choosing instead for multiple reasons to stick with one -- is a failure?
Well, that's tough to say. I don't necessarily expect an article on jezebel.com that invokes feminism to be able to get an A+ in a gender studies course at Smith. ROFL
However, one would hope it could do better than a D+. HOPE. Not expect. It is jezebel.com, not...michel-foucault.com, or something like that.
Yes, I'm being a bit unrealistic, given the context.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm waiting for the point in which you actually argue the other side. Like, provide an argument. Not open-ended discourse analysis.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm waiting for the point in which you actually argue the other side. Like, provide an argument. Not open-ended discourse analysis.
Wait. You STILL don't think I can apply the discourse analysis tools to the script? If you want me to, I am willing to take a stab, I guess. Dude, the movie is lame. However, as long as the script is posted online, I can probably take the first 10-15 pages or so, and do an analysis.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You STILL don't think I can apply the discourse analysis tools to the script?
No one has asked you to do that. In fact, you are the only person here who has suggested that defending the article's feminist criticisms of the new OZ film would require any form of academic analysis at all.
In fact, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are conflating feminism with literary criticism from a feminist viewpoint, which is not at all the same thing (but is, I suppose, a position that's understandable from someone who married two people who fell for "Gender Studies" hard enough to actually waste a college degree on it.)
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Between the three of you, this thread is more full of pseudo-intellectual hot air than a hot air balloon convention held by the NRA.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I firmly reject the assertion that I have been in any way intellectual -- or displayed much if any education whatsoever -- over the course of this thread.
On the other hand, your own "so it's sexist, but so is everything else; big whoop" position remains just as lazy and reprehensible as it started out being. The idea that the author is making much ado about nothing because the problems she sees in the film are endemic to our society and should therefore not be valid grounds for criticism is, frankly, something that I encounter often on the Internet, and it's the worst sort of blinder-wearing cluelessness.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I do think there's something disproportionate about getting deeply incensed about these media representation issues. "Big whoop" isn't very far from my own attitude. Not because everyone does it--that's certainly beside the point--but because the harm done is relatively minor.
There are things wrong with the world that have the potential to end our species. Focusing on these minor issues of fairness instead is, to me, a sign of moral tunnel vision.
I realize that many people think "Let's focus on the big problems to the exclusion of the small ones" is a mistaken perspective, but I disagree. It's extremely vogue these days for activists to spend their time trying to fine-tune the ethical details of pop culture, while very few have any interest in the real threats to civilization. That is sad. I'm always interested to read articles that make good points about this sort of issue, but I consider that a pure intellectual pursuit. It's a waste of time to become an activist about these issues.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I realize that many people think "Let's focus on the big problems to the exclusion of the small ones" is a mistaken perspective, but I disagree.
I don't. For one thing, I don't think having more people making noise about the big problems is likely to actually produce solutions to the big problems.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
On the contrary, I think problems like nuclear proliferation, climate change and especially international poverty are much easier to solve than the moral deficits in US pop culture. We at least know what it would take to solve these problems (in the case of the latter two: money), whereas our understanding of the social science surrounding issues like gender and implicit bias is barely beginning to develop.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
In a lot of ways, we don't even know what the scope of the harm from these social ills actually is, because we don't have a very good understanding of how people actually react to media messages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We at least know what it would take to solve these problems (in the case of the latter two: money)
I've got to confess that I find this position rather staggeringly naive, since standing in the way of throwing money at those problems are, well, social problems.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But people can contribute to solving them by making judicious use of their own money.
Anyway, if you want to argue that the small problems deserve our attention at the expense of the big ones, you should show not only that the big problems are unsolvable, but further, that the small ones are solvable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, man. Do you really think that's more likely than, say, we stop treating women like crap? If there's anything more ingrained in us than bigotry, it's selfishness.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The question isn't how we treat women, in the sense of actual discrimination, the question is how women are portrayed in popular media and what affect that actually has. In many ways, I think we just don't know, so it's too early to spend a lot of effort solving the problem.
By analogy: until very recently, it wasn't even understood what caused mental illness or how to treat it. So spending a lot of effort on trying to cure it rather than study it would have been a mistake. I think social ills like implicit bias and stereotyping (as opposed to overt sexism or racism) are in a similar place right now in terms of our understanding of their causes and effects.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A comparison. Do we need, like, scientific studies to come out before it's safe to conclude something like Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's is something which is Bad and Should Not Be Done because of how it promotes negative stereotypes that do harm with its portrayal of an entire group?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The problem is the soapbox rhetoric of "let's pretend to review this movie, but instead we'll point at it as an affront to feminism and an outright blasphemy full of misogyny".
That's all well and good. And there's a time and a place for a discussion. But at least pick a movie that's worthy of it. Can no one make the argument that ridiculous over-the-top feminist portrayals such as Snow White and the Huntsman are FAR more damaging than a movie (like this) whose only crime is to have a male main character?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
I'm not saying that in the Mickey Rooney case we don't know whether there's any harm being done whatsoever, I'm saying we don't yet know enough to tell whether potential cures might be worse than the disease.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Can no one make the argument that ridiculous over-the-top feminist portrayals such as Snow White and the Huntsman are FAR more damaging than a movie (like this) whose only crime is to have a male main character?
I imagine that stupid people could make that argument. But I don't think it's true, in either particular: that Snow White was egregiously harmful to feminism, or that the only "crime" of OZ was to have a male protagonist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
I sincerely hope that figuring out that mickey rooney's yellowface portrayal in that movie was an ugly bad racist thing that shouldn't be done is something only lefties will get right.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
There was a great article on the sexism in Snow White and the Huntsman, but I can't find it. Here are two with some of the same points, albeit watered down:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
I sincerely hope that figuring out that mickey rooney's yellowface portrayal in that movie was an ugly bad racist thing that shouldn't be done is something only lefties will get right.
It was somewhat wince-worthy in an otherwise lovely film.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Of course not, but I think by focusing on such a clear case you ignore important complexities that are present in most other cases. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a great work of art that we'd be worse off without. I think everyone can agree that it would be wrong to dictate to the filmmakers how to practice their craft with the force of law. The force of social opprobrium is a different, more complicated matter. But I'm generally suspicious of using shaming to silence or divert artistic voices.
The Rooney performance is offensive, by my own standards at least, but I don't think it's healthy to have a culture in which artists are overly worried about who their work might offend. Whether the portrayal of stereotypes has negative effects on culture is another, more serious question--but it's a very difficult question for social scientists to investigate. Even more difficult is the question of what might work better than the way we do things now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
A tougher case that might be good to think about is the Vietnamese hooker in Full Metal Jacket. That character was obviously intended as an exaggerated criticism of American attitudes toward Asians rather than as a joke playing off stereotypes. But what people remember about the movie is "Me love you long time." It's very possible that the negative social effect has been at least as great as the Rooney character's. Does that make FMJ, or that character, a Bad Thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Breakfast at Tiffany's is a great work of art that we'd be worse off without.
Really? Hepburn is a joy, of course, but the rest of the film is pretty darn awful.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
If that's your only point of disagreement, I'm happy to agree to disagree. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Breakfast at Tiffany's is a great work of art that we'd be worse off without.
Really? Hepburn is a joy, of course, but the rest of the film is pretty darn awful.
Not true. The score is great. Besides, Hepburn being a joy is enough. And there is cat.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The problem is the soapbox rhetoric of "let's pretend to review this movie, but instead we'll point at it as an affront to feminism and an outright blasphemy full of misogyny".
That's all well and good. And there's a time and a place for a discussion. But at least pick a movie that's worthy of it. Can no one make the argument that ridiculous over-the-top feminist portrayals such as Snow White and the Huntsman are FAR more damaging than a movie (like this) whose only crime is to have a male main character?
First of all, that's not what happened. Or exactly who would be taken aback to discover a review of a film that also dabbles heavily in gender roles, sexism, feminism, etc., on that website? Soapbox rhetoric? That's generally not what it's called when you have to go out of your way to visit the soapbox.
Second, of course portrayals such as in those films aren't 'far more damaging', or is there a rash of female-to-male violence, underpayment for employment for men versus women, sexual assaults, so on and so forth? 'Far more damaging'...what exactly IS the 'damage' of those portrayals? Or is your point that their efforts to be feminist backfired? And in case you weren't paying attention, not a single person suggested Oz was particularly 'damaging' at all, rather that it was symptomatic of larger problems.
Third, the only problem was not that the main character was male. It's been discussed so many times in this thread it's difficult to see how you might've missed it.
---------
quote:Pretty extreme example compared with Oz, but even in that case I think there are complexities. In particular, I worry about the chilling effect on artistic expression of creating an atmosphere in which lefty identity politics activists determine what is Bad and Should Not Be Done.
Sure, something to worry about, but the sort of thing people on the other side of the fence are talking about might be phrased as: "How is it that decades of a chilling effect in mass media storytelling wherein female characters who are consistently male-focused and second to the male characters is business as usual; criticism that a film embodies this sort of attitude is a 'chilling effect'?"
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Again . . . far more detailed analysis than is required for a popcorn flick. Do you stay up at night arguing the symbolism of Pink Floyd with your stoner friends?
Just saying, the blowhard diatribe of feminist analysis would be better suited in another thread. The intent of this one was to rag on people who criticized a movie tangentially when they hadn't seen it. Oh wait . . . maybe this IS the right thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So you're criticizing thread drift? Well, that makes about as much sense I suppose.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Aros, I'm not sure what you think is wrong with subjecting a popcorn movie, or any other work of art, to analysis. If you're not interested in these questions, move along. If you think people are saying wrong things, go ahead and present your objections.
quote:Sure, something to worry about, but the sort of thing people on the other side of the fence are talking about might be phrased as: "How is it that decades of a chilling effect in mass media storytelling wherein female characters who are consistently male-focused and second to the male characters is business as usual; criticism that a film embodies this sort of attitude is a 'chilling effect'?"
I'm not sure if there was a chilling effect, in the same sense, as opposed to art imitating life in a rather unfortunate way. As you say, business as usual. Did critics used to attack films for portraying female characters as too strong or central to the story?
Anyway, I have no problem whatsoever with criticizing the movie on these grounds. What I have a problem with is people acting like such criticism is of great moral importance in the big scheme of things, or that any idiot can understand exactly what broader social consequences these movies have and what to do about them. Even worse is when people suggest that filmmakers should be shamed or boycotted for their work.
Criticizing implicit moral messages in a movie is an interesting and somewhat important pursuit. Arguing that the movie shouldn't have been made because of those moral messages is (I think) ethically simplistic and disrespectful of artists' role in society. Their job is not to create work that serves or embodies the virtues we're supposed to admire. Their job is to create art as best they can.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Again . . . far more detailed analysis than is required for a popcorn flick. Do you stay up at night arguing the symbolism of Pink Floyd with your stoner friends?
No, but if a thread got really into the subject of the symbolism of Pink Floyd and this was a subject I had interest in and it seemed to provoke a lot of debate, I would sure make posts about it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't think the movie should not have been made, but it's really a good thing to point out that there are lame things about it which should be brought up in the hopes that future movies aren't lame about it.
Everyone benefits, if even just from breaking up the monotony of pliant objectified gendered roles in movies.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It's a good thing, but it's not so good that you should do it and then pat yourself on the back for doing the Lord's work, while the truly underprivileged people of this world suffer and starve. And I get the feeling that a lot of 20-something slacktivists are doing just that (grumble grumble).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I suspect slacktivism crosses all generational boundaries and we'll see that as the older generations are gradually those that are also tech savvy. I think it's likely because the problem isn't 'people focus too much on small things' but rather 'people like to feel good about themselves and also often are reluctant to do hard, thankless work.'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:it's not so good that you should do it and then pat yourself on the back for doing the Lord's work, while the truly underprivileged people of this world suffer and starve
I've always felt that Roger Ebert was a monster for choosing to go into film criticism rather than becoming a doctor. In fact, we're all monsters here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: It's a good thing, but it's not so good that you should do it and then pat yourself on the back for doing the Lord's work, while the truly underprivileged people of this world suffer and starve.
To be sure, are you trying to make the case in any way that because there are objectively worse concerns for the human condition, my entire quantity of effort spent talking about this one is, regardless of relevance or personal interest in the notion, frivolous, wasted, or disagreeable on any of these lines?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Not at all. Nor is there anything monstrous about focusing on parts of life that are not of the utmost moral importance.
What bothers me is when people focus on these less important parts of life and then justify that by convincing themselves that the issues that move them personally are the most important ones, when in fact they're tertiary at best. I've had people look askance at me for enjoying Seth McFarlane's Oscar hosting, who wouldn't dream of judging me for spending money frivolously rather than giving it to the less fortunate. But the latter thing matters so much more. So many people on the left don't have their priorities straight anymore. This is what bothers me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Sure, he beats his wife, but he donated $5 million to cancer research!"
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I think that's really telling, Tom. It's snarky, and you don't bother to explain what you mean... but I do think it underlies a real problem with the priorities Destineer seems to have laid out.
Here's another one:
"Sure, he cured cancer, but he financially supports heteronormative fiction!"
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Abusing your spouse is very bad morally, on an entirely different scale from enjoying or producing morally questionable art. I've also never said anything to imply that being very good in one aspect of life can compensate for being very bad in another way. So I'm not sure why you think the attitude Tom is making fun of has anything to do with my own views.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
That's fair. I thought I saw the glimmer of something useful in his joke as it related to you, but I think I was wrong. Certainly, I can't articulate it. Sorry if I gave offense. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Far from it, I was just unclear about what the problem for me was supposed to be. Especially since Tom didn't say anything himself to explain it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, the problem is that you're ludicrously overstating the issue.
I doubt you'll find a feminist alive who'll say, "Oh, yeah, there's a meteor heading for the planet to wipe out all life on Earth, but I really think we need to fire the scientist leading the deflection effort because he's such a chauvinist."
In the real world, people are capable of focusing on multiple things at once, and observing that some people are jerks is not in fact a distraction from "important issues."
----------
quote:I've had people look askance at me for enjoying Seth McFarlane's Oscar hosting, who wouldn't dream of judging me for spending money frivolously...
I'd be one of those people. Spend money frivolously all you like; enjoying McFarlane's humor is far, far worse. Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Well no more reviews. Rhino times is shutting down:
That is really sad.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Thinking about this more, I don't see OSC stopping reviewing stuff (or writing about politics). He puts the articles on his website after a week, and the politics stuff had other sites as weel. And it's not like Rhino Times ever paid him (he mentioned that in some random column that I am not even going to try to find), so I suspect that he might not have bothered doing things like getting reimbursed for taking his family to the movies or saying it was a tax deduction for his job as reviewer.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
1. Who are the parties involved in the discourse, and which has more power? How is that power exercised, if there were a conflict between the parties?
2. If the power is held by a group, who WITHIN that group is choosing the actual wording of of the discourse?
I doubt any Foucaultian scholar would ask those questions.
Sorry I haven't really read any other post in the thread.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)