|
sethsez posted:It's a bit bizarre to tell someone to come off their high horse and make a case when you haven't bothered to do so yourself. Say what you don't like about the movie ("MRA meme" does not constitute a full argument, at least be specific) so people have something to respond to, rather than just reiterating your disgust over and over. He accused me of having an unoriginal opinion so I didn't think it needed to be detailed out, especially considering I'm showing up on page four and that complaint has already been brought up with specific examples. I'll do it anyway: Memes include: False rape accusations Using a fake pregnancy as leverage Using a man's semen without his permission to get pregnant (personal fav) Men can't get custody in divorce settlements The media always sides with the woman These are all used to make Pike's character into the psycho-stare cartoon villain wife/girlfriend that misogynists are terrified of. That's the aspect of the film I find revolting. She is the bad guy, and the shittiness of Afflek's character can't hope to tip the scales away from that fact. The film somberly shows us that she has ruined peoples lives on a whim. Where is her motivation? Can we believe the old boyfriends fake rape story? Not sure, but its hard to doubt when she does exactly that to Harris' character. Again, like Afflek, Harris' character is a lovely creep, but he's such a loving cartoon too that it really feels like the film is punching down when she kills him, its ducks in a barrel. She is more often motivated by the requirements of the plot than what we get to see on screen. We're told in flashbacks, often narrated by the made-up diary, the reasons why Afflek's character is a bad husband in Amy's eyes. The trouble with this is that the diary was written to discredit him. Its not that I don't believe he's a lovely guy, sure he is, but the framing device throws most of the concrete evidence completely off, its a lovely way of presenting the story, and the only reason its done this way is to preserve mystery. edit: FourLeaf posted:Read my earlier post. It doesn't fit into either of your categories. Also Megasabin's posts. You ask: is it possible to write a female villain without it being misogynistic? Of course it is. Using all those memes I listed above is the exact opposite path towards that. I don't understand what you think is feminist about her or the film. Afflek's failings as depicted in the film are failings that both sexes often have in a relationship, while her plots are the kinds of hyperbolic made up poo poo that men who are afraid of women talk in hushed whispers about. MANIFEST DESTINY fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 5, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
I know it must be hard for people like you to understand, but people that subscribe to that poo poo are going to regardless. Most people walk going wow those hosed up characters made for an enjoyable film!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
It's not even like in Zero Dark Thirty where the problem wasn't the problematic elements but the faux historicity of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:I know it must be hard for people like you to understand, but people that subscribe to that poo poo are going to regardless. Most people walk going wow those hosed up characters made for an enjoyable film! Most people don't post in dedicated threads to a film within a film forum, so that's besides the point. I'm still wrestling with whether the film is misogynist, feminist, or both (!?), but it's not a stretch to think it's the former. After all, it's obvious that the film is saying something about marriage and modern heterosexual relations at large (the cool girl monologue and basically all the commentary on what marriage is), and when the female half of that couple is, in fact, what MANIFEST DESTINY notes is the MRA nightmare, it's hard not to take that as a comment on what women are like in relationships as well. But seriously the "most people don't think about that stuff" argument? Really?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:I know it must be hard for people like you to understand, but people that subscribe to that poo poo are going to regardless. Most people walk going wow those hosed up characters made for an enjoyable film! Its not hard for me to understand, actually the whole reason it bothers me is that people see it and absorb it into their already twisted set of prejudices. Manifesting Amy's villainy in poo poo like using a secret sperm stash to trap him with her pregnancy is like writing a muslim villain with a giant turban running around with a bunch of Acme dynamite strapped to his chest. Amy doesn't just take a bunch of random bad deeds out of the grab-bag, every action she takes is very specifically something that men who hate women say that women do. She's not a real human being for us to diagnose, she's a textual element of the film and they chose all her methods. I personally thought the message conveyed by those choices was pretty clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Do you only enjoy media that's impossible to misinterpret?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
I'll indulge you. At one point I thought wow they are hitting all the tropes but then I remembered I can distinguish fiction from reality. Sorry this movie bummed you out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Do you only enjoy media that's impossible to misinterpret? I'm saying that the correct interpretation of the film is that Amy is a misogynist's cartoon. She's a literal tour of things that misogynists think women do. I wish there was another way of interpreting it, but all I have is her actions in the text. CortezFantastic posted:I'll indulge you. At one point I thought wow they are hitting all the tropes but then I remembered I can distinguish fiction from reality. Sorry this movie bummed you out. What are you trying to say here? The fact that it is fiction is exactly the problem. Someone chose that the bad guy would do these things, and they chose them for a specific reason. MANIFEST DESTINY fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:I'm saying that the correct interpretation of the film is that Amy is a misogynist's cartoon. She's a literal tour of things that misogynists think women do. I wish there was another way of interpreting it, but all I have is her actions in the text. If being a misogynist means that you think women are murderous sociopaths who you're too scared to be around when asleep, then thank god I'm not a misogynist, it doesnt sound like much of a way to live.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:I'm saying that the correct interpretation of the film is that Amy is a misogynist's cartoon. She's a literal tour of things that misogynists think women do. I wish there was another way of interpreting it, but all I have is her actions in the text. You have a broken retard brain. You need to stop posting. If you need to probate me for saying this correct opinion, so be it. Everyone else please continue talking about this movie and ignore this loving idiots bad take on a good movie. Thank you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Amy reads like a parody of a psycho-bitch that a woman-hater would write. She checks off all of the boxes so thoroughly, and is the bitchiest, most psycho psycho-bitch to ever bitch psychotically, it's hard not to laugh when she does something terrible. The only thing that's missing is her threatening to divorce him and take half of his stuff, but that doesn't work because she's the one with the money because she's a dumb psycho-bitch who never had to work a day in her life because mommy and daddy were so rich she could do whatever she wanted the psycho-bitch. I suppose the question is, did someone write this character thinking "yes I think a person would act like this", or did they write it thinking "yes I think a loving moron would thing a person would act like this"? edit: I mean poo poo her fake journal entry scenes are the fakest most obvious obnoxious indie-romance scenes this side of a Zach Braff movie. She's like whatever the opposite of a Mary-Sue is, someone who is so evil that every time another evil thing is added to her list of evil things it gets silly. I think this movie was made tongue firmly in cheek, based on the other moments in the movie I laughed, I think Amy being The Worst Woman To Ever Have Existed is supposed to be the ultimate joke. Yoshifan823 fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
If that's the joke what's the punchline? What are we supposed to take away from the construction of the worst possible woman? That's what I failed to find in this, the conclusion is pretty much 'and she ruins his life but who cares because he sucks, the end.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
So wait, are women not allowed to be evil in movies or it's misogynistic? As other people have pointed out, the only two levelheaded people in the entire film are women. Also, I would place this movie in the horror genre personally, Amy is pretty much written to be the craziest psycho-bitch imaginable. I don't see why that makes Fincher or Flynn misogynists. It's pretty clear that Amy is not being portrayed as in any way representative of women in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
yo this movie was extremely dope and good
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
however after watching it i immediately broke up with my girlfriend because how can i trust her after that? really makes you think
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Here's the four things I really, really liked about the movie. 1: The whole mugging scene and the fact that they get away with it. I thought it was an awesome juxtaposition between the fact that there are criminals who PLAN AND PLAN AND PLAN and ones who just do. The smart character who has this incredibly convoluted scheme to exact revenge just gets loving rolled by two hicks who knows what's up, and the planner's scheme just implodes because they can't detach themselves from their revenge and the robbery just fucks over their whole plan while the hicks get away scot-free. She did all this reading about how to commit the perfect crime and get away with it...except she met the two people who committed the perfect crime to her, and they were taught by experience and actually doing it and it's really nothing personal. Crime isn't a punishing, teaching tool. Crime is a way to put money in your pocket and Twizzlers on your table. 2: The fact that Tanner Bolt keeps saying that he's got his TOP MEN on trying to find Amy and they just don't. They don't. Did he really have top men? Did they just suck? Or is he just lying and doesn't give enough of a poo poo to bother because, in keeping in theme with his constant dismissal of Nick's truth, that's not what's important, what's important is the lying and the PR and the spinning of the story. Maybe he just said that to shut Nick up and keep him from worrying about that. 3: The actors and actresses but especially Carrie Coon. I hope she gets more good work because drat she did a good job. 4: Nick's dad and how he's this old, senile, hateful man and misogynist and terrible father who life has reduced to being a shuffling old prick who mumbles "bitch" all day and can't be trusted to be alone, and the subtle implication that he's always been like that (without the senility) and that's why Nick's parents got divorced. Vox Valentine fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Yeah if anything I think that the movie does speak to some idea that we're also shaped by our parents, and that's a thing we can't help. Both Amy and Nick are presumably twisted in different ways (Amy by her Mother, Nick by his Father). Nick tries to deny he's just like his father until he can't deny it anymore. As for the diary entries, I think what people are missing is that, in the early going at least, they are real. Someone said they were like a Zach Braff movie and that's exactly right, because they're both playing a part. They manufacture these perfect moments. It ties in to the ultimate theme of the movie, which is about truth and 'The Truth'. Affleck plays this perfect guy who ticks all the boxes for her (Charming, funny, romantic, goes down on her) which she returns by being the perfect girl for him. They both shape and mold themselves and one another into an ideal and it becomes toxic when you can't keep up the pretence anymore.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
What a flick! Anyone else wish that c**t Amy got what was coming to her? If my wife tried that with me, I'd be like get back in the kitchen cupcake! lol (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 11:20
|
|
|
So, wait, this movie is like Wolf of Wall Street or Fight Club, except that it does not hover between (idiots, mostly young men) "yeah, that's cool" (some normal people) "that's socially irresponsible" (other normal people) "satire and exaggeration have a right to exist" but between (MRAs, mostly young men) "yeah, that's exactly how bitches behave" (some normal people) "that's socially irresponsible" (other normal people) "satire and exaggeration have a right to exist"? What's the voice of the female sociopathic demographic? Is it possible to come out of this movie laughing 'yup, it was amazing and hilarious how Amy f*cked him up'? Because, if we're digging in trenches, this is where I want to stand. Will I be able to, or should I have to see The Guest instead?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 12:14
|
|
|
meristem posted:So, wait, this movie is like Wolf of Wall Street or Fight Club, except that it does not hover between Who is arguing that satire and exaggeration don't have a right to exist? Also go and see The Guest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:If that's the joke what's the punchline? What are we supposed to take away from the construction of the worst possible woman? That's what I failed to find in this, the conclusion is pretty much 'and she ruins his life but who cares because he sucks, the end.' I'm not sure she's the worst possible woman, with Nick being the male paranoia I would say she's the female revenge fantasy, the one who walks and twists a men's world; albeit I think this might have a Fight Club side-effect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:27
|
|
|
The main themes of the movie are deceit, manipulation, and control-- and in the third act love-- and with all the unreliable narration and characters, not to mention the not-so-subtle dialogue about bending and shaping an audiences' perception, I don't understand how you could take a surface level reading of the film's "misogyny" without seeing that it's just a facade probably meant to make you feel some type of way. There's a lot more going on with these characters if you don't get caught up in the "hey, in this hand I have false rape accusations," and miss what's happening in the other hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:If that's the joke what's the punchline? What are we supposed to take away from the construction of the worst possible woman? That's what I failed to find in this, the conclusion is pretty much 'and she ruins his life but who cares because he sucks, the end.' My interpretation of the ending- That it's absurd to think the woman doing these things could actually exist, unless she were mentally ill. Our protagonist, another caricature, the beta male, has to put up with it. trip9 posted:So wait, are women not allowed to be evil in movies or it's misogynistic? As other people have pointed out, the only two levelheaded people in the entire film are women. Strongly agreed. The misogyny claims would hold water if Amy was presented as realistic, but she isn't. Only coming from a book-reader perspective so far, going to see the film this afternoon. Really interested to see how the movie depicts certain aspects of the story, because either Fincher made explicit things subtle, or many ITT really missed the boat. By the end of the book Its crystal clear that Amy is a sociopath, and the villain of the story. The back and forth relationship woes are part of the first act(and often fabricated in the diary) , and after the reveal it's full-on evil by Amy. It's weird to hear that others don't see it this way, it makes me super curious to see how Fincher handles it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:The main themes of the movie are deceit, manipulation, and control-- and in the third act love-- and with all the unreliable narration and characters, not to mention the not-so-subtle dialogue about bending and shaping an audiences' perception, I don't understand how you could take a surface level reading of the film's "misogyny" without seeing that it's just a facade probably meant to make you feel some type of way. There's a lot more going on with these characters if you don't get caught up in the "hey, in this hand I have false rape accusations," and miss what's happening in the other hand. Great post. The two leads are both liars, and the story itself lies to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
With so few female screenwriters even able to get their films to the screen, it is incredibly frustrating to me to hear people decrying Flynn's script as misogynistic. Almost every major comedy in Hollywood has dumb female tropes and misogyny, but they are just accepted. Look at the plot of "The Other Woman", for instance. Where was the pushback against that? Amy is a well-drawn and pretty capable character. Watching her, I thought drat, this is a female Hannibal Lecter and it was awesome. She was not a cartoon like in Single White Female or The Hand that Rocks the Cradle or Fatal Attraction. Flynn used "misogynistic tropes" because if the villain is a woman those are the tools that she would have the easiest access to. It was really fun to watch a female villain who was kicking rear end. Also, in the book, one of Amy's former victims is a woman and I think the script should have included that to show that Amy does not just "hate men", she is honestly a psychopath. To clarify, I was not rooting for Amy. I found it difficult to "root" for either of them. The film is basically a roller coaster where the audience is just along for the ride. Namirsolo fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
One of the things that struck me when I was watching is when Amy spits in the drink of the female roommate, it shows how outlandishly petty she is and how much she overreacts when feeling slighted. It actually made me lose more sympathy for her than anything else and I was cheering when she was robbed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
"There's a lot of people out there worse than us" is a great moment of giving us a little glimpse of a whole other world going on just outside the film.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
BOAT SHOWBOAT posted:A point I'd argue the film is making is that, due to the dominant power structures we have, male cruelty in relationships are part of the hegemonic norm to the point where they're almost imperceptible; this is how someone like Amy can exist and feel they need go to such extremes to "get even". It's an inherently feminist point, not a misogynistic one, though you can of course disagree. The problem with this (which I've already posted) is that there's nothing misogynistic about depicting a woman using violence to fight against patriarchal oppression. A good example of this is Kill Bill, a movie in which a woman does exactly what you are saying - fighting against male power with violence because she is pushed to extremes. What makes this movie's depiction of Amy misogynistic is that in going to extremes to get even, she draws on pretty much every psycho-bitch stereotype out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
MeinPanzer posted:The problem with this (which I've already posted) is that there's nothing misogynistic about depicting a woman using violence to fight against patriarchal oppression. A good example of this is Kill Bill, a movie in which a woman does exactly what you are saying - fighting against male power with violence because she is pushed to extremes. What makes this movie's depiction of Amy misogynistic is that in going to extremes to get even, she draws on pretty much every psycho-bitch stereotype out there. That is the point. Amy does this because as a psychopath, she doesn't sympathize with any human being and hates men and women equally. Her "Cool Girl" speech states what she thinks of women. She uses the "monster women" tools because that is what she believes every woman is. Men are no better in her head. She's just a monster. Women should be able to appear as monsters on screen as much as men can without decrying a film as women-hating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Let's not forget, that in a funny little joke, Amy writes those personality tests for magazines when she first meets Nick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Speaking of funny jokes, the "Kill Self?" post-it note was a tremendously inspired bit of black comedy that I think was unique to the movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:The main themes of the movie are deceit, manipulation, and control-- and in the third act love-- and with all the unreliable narration and characters, not to mention the not-so-subtle dialogue about bending and shaping an audiences' perception, I don't understand how you could take a surface level reading of the film's "misogyny" without seeing that it's just a facade probably meant to make you feel some type of way. There's a lot more going on with these characters if you don't get caught up in the "hey, in this hand I have false rape accusations," and miss what's happening in the other hand. Saying that Amy is a misogynistic caricature isn't my reading of the film, its just a statement about the character. Of course, the themes of the film are "deceit, manipulation, and control", Amy's character embodies all of those in the worst way. Not sure I agree with you that love shows up in the third act. What more is going on with the characters that I'm not seeing? The amount of screen time devoted to them interacting where its not a false flashback is pretty limited, and the vast majority of the film is devoted to unraveling Amy's machinations. There's not much you can get out of interactions with an insane person, it never speaks to real world relationships because everything we see of them is either A)Amy's fictionalized history or B)Amy enacting her crazy schemes. What is the film saying about relationships? Is it not outshined by the blinding supernova of Amy's psychosis? Maybe they should have toned that down...a lot? mkay0 posted:My interpretation of the ending- That it's absurd to think the woman doing these things could actually exist, unless she were mentally ill. Our protagonist, another caricature, the beta male, has to put up with it. Yeah, it is absurd to think such a character would exist, and I don't think anyone is confused about the fact that she's the villain. If you're confused about why people would still have a problem with it, try and imagine a film where the villain is a racist caricature, pick whatever race you want and imagine that all the evil deeds they do are based specifically on the things that racists say about that group. Would anyone get away with making such a film? Doubtful, unless it was a full on satire and even then you have issues. Is this film a satire? People in this thread have said so but without satisfactorily saying what exactly its meant to satire. You could see it as a full on exploitation style film where we're just meant to bask in the character out of a misogynist's worst nightmare, but if that were the case why aren't we given anything approaching sympathy for Amy? It can't be a revenge film if the film establishes she's evil from the start. What I keep saying here is that the film has all the hallmarks in its over the top nature of some kind of parody, but I just can't pin down what its trying to point at. It would make sense if Afflek's character hated women like his father and Amy, after being long subjected to it, internalizes that and explodes in this kind of revenge, but the film never presents any of that, instead it actively undermines the history of the characters by establishing it as a falsification. MANIFEST DESTINY fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
Buzzfeed (of all places) interviewed Gillian Flynn and asked her about some of the issues that have also been brought up here. It'd be best to read the whole interview: http://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonwillmore/gone-girl-writer-gillian-flynn-takes-on-picky-fans-mens-righ#1bbv0hb Highlighting one relevant answer here, but read the whole interview. quote:Amy is someone who understands, as you’ve put it, all the tropes. She understands perceptions of femininity. That said, she is in some ways a men’s rights activist’s perfect affirmation — she fakes victimization, she fakes rape. And some people won’t see past that. It's like Ignatiy Vishnevetsky's write-up said earlier. Amy isn't meant to be representative of anyone other than herself, and that's the point. By taking the film as misogynist, you're assuming that Amy fits the role of the typical woman. She's far more complicated than that, and uses these assumptions about a typical woman/man/victim/etc. to her advantage. You don't know what's going on in Nick's head or Amy's. You can only judge them by the roles they play, and try to suss out the truth from that. There's a reason why one of the film's last lines is "What are you thinking?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Yeah, I read it. So if she's JUST a villain wielding misogynist tropes, how does that make it any better? Its a non-defense. Its making the mistake of talking about a fictional character as if they're real, and not the author's construction. Yes, as she says, its interesting to see a character turn around what has been projected upon them, but unfortunately we don't see enough projected upon Amy in the film. If anything, it should have been a film about her taking revenge on her parents. She says this, too: quote:Her violence, her anger is a very female form, and that’s what I’ve always been interested in portraying, from Sharp Objects on, is the particularly female brand of psychological violence, which is very different from a male, and scarier, I think, often. Which I find pretty telling, in terms of the authors perspective. MANIFEST DESTINY fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
I think that Amy embodies both sides of the most prevalent forms of misogyny. Amy does everything that MRA's think that women do, but in the movie, all of the men (with the exception of her husband and sort-of his attorney*) believe Amy's story because of an equally misogynist but far more common belief: women are ALWAYS the victim. They are incapable of planning to hurt someone and following through on it. Women are eternal slaves to men's desires, and have no agency of their own. The only women to believe her are the idiot neighbor, and her mother, who lives to cash in on her daughter, and probably sees the whole thing through a haze of dollar signs. The women with brains were the only ones questioning Amy's tale. I think it was a really impressive stunt to create a character who can take BOTH of the worst views of women (the MRA-nightmare, rape-faking, pregnancy-creating type, and the helpless damsel-in-distress type) and make them work for her. *I don't think it was ever really stated that the attorney believed Nick. He seemed to think that it was a great story that they could spin into a semi-credible defense, but I don't know if he gave it any more weight than that. I could've missed it though. Edit: Semi-beaten. April fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
With people mentioning how it plays into MRA and RedPill tropes, I thought I'd go into the lions den itself and read what they have to say. Here are two threads I found on Reddit discussing the movie. Jesus these people are loving nutters. But perhaps the craziest thing I read in these posts is that some of these posters are married! To women!!! Anyway, "enjoy": http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2icfgz/has_anyone_seen_the_movie_gone_girl_yet/ http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2icwl4/gone_girl_a_red_pill_analysis/
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:With people mentioning how it plays into MRA and RedPill tropes, I thought I'd go into the lions den itself and read what they have to say. Here are two threads I found on Reddit discussing the movie. Jesus these people are loving nutters. But perhaps the craziest thing I read in these posts is that some of these posters are married! To women!!! Anyway, "enjoy": I'm certainly going to click this
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
MANIFEST DESTINY posted:If you're confused about why people would still have a problem with it, try and imagine a film where the villain is a racist caricature, pick whatever race you want and imagine that all the evil deeds they do are based specifically on the things that racists say about that group. Would anyone get away with making such a film? Doubtful, unless it was a full on satire and even then you have issues. Is this film a satire? People in this thread have said so but without satisfactorily saying what exactly its meant to satire. You could see it as a full on exploitation style film where we're just meant to bask in the character out of a misogynist's worst nightmare, but if that were the case why aren't we given anything approaching sympathy for Amy? It can't be a revenge film if the film establishes she's evil from the start. What I keep saying here is that the film has all the hallmarks in its over the top nature of some kind of parody, but I just can't pin down what its trying to point at. It would make sense if Afflek's character hated women like his father and Amy, after being long subjected to it, internalizes that and explodes in this kind of revenge, but the film never presents any of that, instead it actively undermines the history of the characters by establishing it as a falsification. So if you've seen it, do you also have a problem with Do The Right Thing? Because it basically does everything you're saying for black people instead of women. It includes all sorts of negative stereotypes racists say about black people, and all you have to do is find the clips of it on YouTube to see people using it to justify their racism. So what was the point of that movie? Is Spike Lee just racist? Or is there something that makes it different from, say, The Birth of a Nation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:Does it speak badly of me that I sat through this entire movie not once thinking about MRA or misogyny or anything of the like? I even looked women in the eye instead of avoiding them I did the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:07 |
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:I did the same. Same here. I am overthinking it today, reading the thread, but when I read the book & watched the movie, I loved the experience. Brilliant sociopaths are fun to watch. There's a reason that Hannibal Lecter and the Joker are such popular characters. To everyone who's mostly normal, and operates according to society's rules, and experiences empathy and other human emotions, seeing someone operate completely outside of what's considered acceptable is great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:58
|
|