|
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is about a literal Manic Pixie Dream Girl. It's not unlike (500) Days of Summer in that the character as she appears within the phallocentric narrative is an idealization of what the male sees as lacking in his castrated self and is trapped by this patriarchal fantasy; except it's also more akin to Basic Instinct where this idealization is literally the Devil.Pirate Jet posted:The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo by David Fincher is a movie that is primarily about how bad the book is. It's the closest Fincher has made to a thematic sequel to Fight Club, because people forget that Tyler Durden is an idealized man who is directly inspired by the Narrator's encounter with the perfect woman (his 'spirit animal').
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo sucks bad in all of its incarnations and the Fincher one may be the worst one. Even if you like none of its incarnations, Fincher's film is easily better than Oplev's. Oplev is the one who builds this slogging procedural around a farcical romance between Blomkvist and Salander, capped off by the laughable image of the latter strolling idyllically along a promenade in the Cayman Islands. Fincher's film is tighter written, better shot, has more complex and remote characterization, and, most importantly, makes it explicit that the intentionally anti-climactic resolution of the potboiler killer mystery hasn't resolved Salander's pathology. Like, there's no weird post-coitus confession and forgiveness like in Oplev's film, nor an idealized walk along the promenade. Salander really is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl with impossible powers of sleuthing, but in Fincher's film this isn't actually enough to make her a complete person, and her trist with Blomkvist reinforces her alienation rather than partially repairing it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:Also, Fincher's is more leering. Compare the sex scenes. Oplev's is awkward and uncomfortable. Fincher's is soft orange lighting and gratuitous shots of Rooney Mara's rear end. I feel like the awkwardness in Oplev's sex scene comes from his romanticizing of Salander and Blomkvist's relationship. With Fincher, it's a purely libidinal thing. It's not building to Salander confiding anything in Blomkvist, it's just loving. I don't see it as leering so much as Fincher just being frank - to an almost comically gratuitous sense - about lust. Both sex scenes are awkward, frankly. Fincher's film has several really good performances, and this is helped by a script that doesn't just plant the characters as melodramatic stereotypes. Christopher Plummer as Henry Vagner is particularly effective of the Vagner family, his calculated determinacy contrasting with the defeated, crying Sven-Bertil Taube at the beginning of Oplev's film. Per Myrberg's brief turn as Harald is also a great example of where Zaillian's script points up and to a certain extent intentionally plays off the simplistic construction of the original film. This directly contributes to a more threatening Martin by Stellan Skarsgard, because one realizes in Blomkvist's encounter with Myrberg that Martin - explicitly not a Nazi, nor particularly religious - has been the one playing off of the incompetent Blomkvist's rash association between Nazism and sadistic killing/rape, because he makes a loaded equation between them as 'basically the same' because they are both 'pure evil.' The most Oplev's movie does is make Myrberg pathetic, but Zaillian goes all the way in making him problematically likable, a Nazi who is a good neighbor. The religious and fascistic imagery of the killings is revealed to itself be a superficial disguise and misdirection on Martin's part, and which he is cognizant he can employ to catch the nose of the muckraking liberal journalist.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:They're both pedestrian, but one has a good performance in it and is also five minutes shorter. It's really not splitting hairs to say that Fincher's film is good in all the ways Oplev's movie isn't. Especially if you're saying that the saving grace of Oplev's film is Noomi Rapace; since the saving grace of Fincher's film is that more than one person turns in a good performance, these good performances come out of a better script that does more with the source's manichaean premise, and that this script is directed by someone whose aesthetic and thematic eye goes beyond hackneyed television.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Having finally seen the film, the accusations of misogyny and MRA-baiting are thoroughly understandable. If the film was lacking in one respect, it was its dogged determination to make Affleck as incapacitated as possible despite lip-service to his being unlikable. Like, the film is explicitly criticizing a culture that assumes guilt based on circumstantial character assassination, from the point of view that the simplest answer is not the correct one, and because nobody actually knows anything, therefore anything is indeed possible. It's not hard to see how this is directly related to contemporary true crime controversies. The mistake, I think, is taking the film's wife-murder conceit too literally. Basically, Affleck is playing a 'white Latino' again. This isn't about women entrapping men, it's about the Trayvon Martin shooting, and Affleck is George Zimmerman. The movie is told largely from this nightmare world perspective, where Trayvon Martin really did pose a threat to the pathetic Zimmerman's consciousness, where Zimmerman saw himself as being trapped and harassed by the Other, and, consequently, where the world assumes rationally that the person in power is guilty despite the fact that it is possible (regardless of probability) that the Other really is to blame. But this is part of what makes Gone Girl so good, that it pushes this nightmare perspective to such an extreme that it circuitously becomes kind of funny. Personally, I was dying with laughter by the film's end, and so were a couple of old ladies sitting around me. Comparisons to Basic Instinct are apt because Amy is, in fact, the Devil, specifically as a product of cultural idealization. The thing about the Devil or Adversary is that it is the Other of Christ, representing material obsession over spiritual faith. Just as Christ praised those who believed without seeing, forgiving rather than judging, the Devil tempts us by giving us a material image that we can vainly sympathize with and, thus, the point-of-fact to cast stones. This is actually a metaphor that Fincher engages directly rather than indirectly through his portrayal of the media. The first way we see Amy is literally from Nick's perspective, and from there she is simply gone, glimpsed only in flashbacks, which we are explicitly told by both Nick and Amy are at least partially mutual. In these flashbacks, the dominant attention is paid by Amy as the narrator to Nick 'sweeping her off her feet' and narrativizing their future lives, ironically juxtaposed with the children's book character Amazing Amy. This irony is conscious on Amy's part as an author - like Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct - but also on Fincher's, because it's framed explicitly by Nick's perspective. Throughout the story, characters continue to refer to her as Amazing Amy, even though it's emphasized that Amy as she appears in the flashbacks, in Amy's own words, is nothing like this perfect character, this perfect paternal idealization. The point is that much like there is no Tyler Durden, there is no Amy. She is a gone girl, an absence only made present by televisual/cinematic/novelistic narrativization. Her very existence is an undermining of the stability of reality because in her perfect object conception, she is more real than real. This becomes funny because, improbably, the object begins telling its own story for itself. The point is that the reality of Amy as a woman goes beyond what either her mother or Nick can fathom. To paraphrase Philip Roth, she becomes an actuality that is continuously outdoing the talents of the authors around her. It's as if Trayvon Martin faked his own shooting and forced George Zimmerman to shack him up at his house Bugs Bunny style. And this becomes a direct accusation of 24 hour news media and galvanized talking heads looking for ratings. Their conception of who Amy is is actually being controlled by her, and they have no idea. They think they have the juicy true crime story, but Amy is writing a crime actuality that outdoes the talents of a news program whose stated objective is to get ratings by pandering to compassion for a victimized woman. They think they are illuminating the lives of viewers by presenting them with 'facts' and the convenient narrative to string them together, but actually what they're doing is distracting them with materialism. Amazing Amy has gone from merely being an object victim to becoming everything, a total expression of our material reality alienated from compassion or God. Through Fincher's sympathetic film, the Other reveals itself as a vivid expression not only of what we desire but of what we truly are. The problem with calling this misogynistic is that it implies you in no way supposed to identify with a villain or take pleasure in what they do, even though we're all well aware of male villains who are charismatic precisely because they revel in their identities. Obviously there are patterns of sexist cliches to contend with, but by and large Gone Girl really does present a somewhat balanced portrait of a feminine antagonist. Everyone seems to be forgetting the third-act reversal where Amy becomes Desi's prisoner, effectively moving out of one sphere of domestic possession into another. To assume that Amy is only manipulating Desi is a failure of imagination. Just because Desi is obsessed with and deceived by the feminine ideal doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing by entrapping her.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:The fact that a few people defended Amy murdering Desi as self-defense is honestly sort of baffling to me. Yeah, the dude was pretty creepy, but I didn't get the vibe that he was planning on hurting her, or that she couldn't just leave while he was gone. In fact, she only starts to plan her "escape" (tying up her arms, the wine bottle thing, etc) once she sees Nick on TV saying everything she wanted to hear and decides to go back. That having been said, the scene I mentioned was absolutely gruesome, horrifying, and shocking in the best possible way. It's not so much that her actions are defensible as folks are seriously underestimating and making a lot of loaded assumptions about her and Desi's past. She's consistently manipulative of him, but he's clearly an imposing presence who's very naturalistic about imposing his whim upon her. There's something about their relationship that was unique to them that isn't necessarily the case with Nick or the other guy. Again, it's a failure of imagination in a movie all about unknown knowns.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
In the alternate ending the cat is Amy and Nick's child.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:They were joking. Which isn't ironic in the least since the Bechdel test was already a sardonic joke in a comic strip that people took way too seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:It doesn't exactly blame the work exactly but sort of bemoans a hosed up culture that will use it to give credence to a lot of misogynistic lies. It's a fair point - also nothing new to the consumption of media (how many fuckheads did you know in college with a Tony Montana poster?) Lindy West posted:I wish we could have conversations about how to process media responsibly, how to balance escapism and critical thought, without being dismissed as Tipper Gore wet-blanket killjoy turds. This is not a 'fair point.' This is a typical and unenlightening misdirection from the author having to perform exactly the kinds of critical engagement that she is complaining she can't engage in without harassment. "I wish that stories about bad women could just be stories" is flatly contradictory of wanting critical engagement without being dismissed by sexists, because wanting something to "just" be a story implies that you don't actually want to engage in discussions of cultural bigotry, but have an excuse to not think about it. She's tacitly legitimizing the MRA perspective in order to construct a flimsy, back door critique that conveniently obfuscates the obvious point that she brings up: that sadistic villains are awesome and that it makes no difference if the villain is a man or woman, except to sexists. She is clearly just as uncomfortable with a all-powerful female Deviless as an MRA. She is talking down to ideas that she is having and then pretending that she's not having them. That's not a fair point, it's bad criticism. Why is Lindy West trying to change the discussion from analyzing gender politics to complaining that we can't discuss them? It's not because she's afraid of disapproval; it's because she knows other women are afraid of disapproval. She knows they don't want to be MRA nightmares, but their economic stress minimum of liberal cultural approval. Fincher and Flynn's position is that we should admire the MRA nightmare, because she's loving awesome. Tyler Perry, the misandry-specialist defense attorney, literally tells us that's what we should do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Taear posted:If they'd included her other character-destroying escapades from the book it would have made her a better character. On the other hand, by giving us just little enough information, they make her a total character. Which is to say, there is no Amazing Amy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Pycckuu posted:I saw this movie and thought it was good. I don't get why people think its misogynist, unless they think an obvious psychopath is supposed to represent all women? It's not they who think she represents all women. It's other people, you see?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Take the scene with the ex, it's pretty clear that the movie wants you to know that Amy lied about the sexual assault. But what does that really serve? We already know that Amy is dishonest because we're witnessing it. Why are people so certain that Desi's relationship with her is ambiguous, but the ex's isn't? Desi isn't the only character whose overtly sick nature creates ambiguity. Amy's plan to deceive the world abjectly fails at least once when she's robbed by Jeff and Greta, the latter of whom makes a deliberate point about how obviously bad Amy is at 'faking it.' This is compounded further by Detective Boney's rebuffed interrogation at the end of the film. The point of the film is continually that what appears on the surface is not always the case. Desi is not just a scared, pathetic depressive who 'wants to help,' but a controlling maniac with possible OCD. Nick is not just a pathetic, incapacitated hubby, but a cheating and petty manipulator who -- because it is revealed that Amy's diary entry on the matter is a deceit -- thinks that a baby will solve the problems in his marriage by 'giving the bitch something to do.' Why should we suspect that Amy just wantonly eats men for no reason? Why do people trust men more than women, except when women cry rape and torture? This is the question Flynn is asking, and so far neither the MRA camp nor the feminist one has a sufficient answer.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:They don't? And, yet, in a fantasy staging of this scenario - in which almost everyone has an ulterior motive and at least two of Amy's S.O.'s are shown to be manipulative and duplicitous, and in which Amy's own plans are increasingly befuddled by 'regular people' - people assume that the guy crying foul on Amy's rape charge is being totally honest just because he presents himself as a victim and Nick sympathizes with him. All of this is getting lost in the confusion over whether these men do 'enough' to 'deserve' what happens to them. This is neither an MRA nightmare nor a pseudo-feminist revenge fantasy. The society of the film is directly engaging in a fantasy of convenient gender constructs that happen to reward an abusive, manipulative relationship. Margo straight up says to Nick, 'You have no reason to stay in this awful marriage, unless you actually want to be with your abuser.' This is an allegorical reversal of slut-shaming onto the male. DrVenkman posted:Because when Nick visits the ex, it's established that she's in full on lying mode (Isn't he also the one that Nick knows nothing about at the start, because Amy hadn't mentioned him?). So the scene plays out without any sort of ambiguity. We hear the ex's story and hear how she's ruined his life. Nick nods and moves on. The movie, nor either of the characters, provide any sort of counter-point. The movie offers no reason to think he's lying, and the scene comes at a point where it wants you to know how far her lives go. This is a legitimization of the ex's story that doesn't actually take into account what you allude to, which is not really that Amy has a history of 'striking out' with men, but a history of engaging with men who are only interested in her as long as she maintains the facade of a perfectly complicit object in an idealized fantasy. The film actually does a lot to make us suspicious of the men in it, by them constantly being shown to be either duplicitous or stupid. The scene with Desi is different only because Desi is 'revealed.' Saying that we should trust the ex just because he isn't 'revealed' is playing into a narrative of conveniently fed information that the film satirizes with its depiction of the mainstream media. What we should instead accept is that we don't know. K. Waste fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Well if that were the case I'd argue that film does a poor job of being conveying that ambiguity. Sure it feints with false viewpoints in the first half, but past the big twist the film obviously expects the audience to accept what we're seeing as truth . That may be the way it strikes you, but I'm taking at face value a film about dishonest people presenting themselves dishonestly, and in the service of a mediated spectacle that we are explicitly shown is intended to exploit our visceral and sentimental emotions. The big twist doesn't catalyze a suddenly transparent narrative of the feminine monstrous. If anything, the feminine monstrous is increasingly stripped of its allure, like when Greta the victim-blaming thief turns the tables on the supposedly expert social and cultural manipulator. Misogyny, it turns out, is more powerful than false feminism. I feel like more attention to the subject of victim blaming is worthwhile since you brought it up. The way I see it, the problem is not actually women being distrusted when they report rape and sexual assault, suspicion is arbitrary and personally derived in the first part (albeit often culturally ingrained), and practical in the sense successfully prosecuting crimes. Detective Boney is a perfect example of this assimilated female mentality: She doesn't automatically assume Nick is responsible just because he's a stupid, aggressive guy; and when Amy is playing the media like a fiddle, she doesn't assume that a woman is necessarily a victim because, again, she's not a binary sexist who thinks that "the simplest answer is the right one." The problem to me is that regardless of whether or not the crime occurs, it is systemically swept under the rug. Look at any case of high school sports team rape or molestation. In many cases, the evidence is incontrovertible, and multiple administrative individuals become aware of it. The suspicion of the victim, it turns out, is merely a pretense of achieving what was already going to happen anyway, which is that the pigs were going to sweep the rape under the rug for 'the greater good.' This is why people are hesitant of reporting any kind of sexual assault or rape. More than the fear of suspicion, which is unavoidable, there is the fear that nothing will be done because secretly people condone this behavior, which is the demonstrative attitude of our rape culture in regards to its prevalence in prisons and juvenile detention centers. But that's the position that Greta holds: It doesn't matter if Nick raped/killed his wife, because she deserved it regardless. Rape culture is not the assumption that people lie about rape, but that rape is deserved or 'not rape' in special circumstances. We should not question the presentation of naive, political-baiting media narratives, whether they be Tyler Perry's track record (which could not possibly only involve innocent men) or not-Nancy Grace's galvanized prime-time horror show. We should, instead, accept them and choose sides. It's superficially objective, bipartisan media liberalism that distracts people from the actual problem, which is the entire system of sexism and socially condoned abuse/exploitation.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I don't think the pat defense of "oh you think it's misogynist because YOU assume Amy must represent ALL women, the issue is with YOU" is that strong. Thomas Ruffin Gray's "The Confessions of Nat Turner" and William Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" are both really good. And the former is almost assuredly written by a racist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Birth of a Nation is also a great film--I'm not joking, I mean, it is a really well put together piece of work. I go more for Broken Blossoms. Also, the movie doesn't expect you to 'look up to Amy.' Again, she's a false-feminist, media bourgeoisie monster. But it does expect you to find what she does funny up to a point. Tyler Perry laughing about how Nick is doomed to be married to a psycho killer is the film's position. it's presenting you with an MRA nightmare and mocking it as a black comic allegory for how even a society in which the Bad Woman succeeds is technically misogynistic. In classic Noir, the Bad Woman is scarred, killed, or otherwise punished. Gone Girl is a black comic reversal of this, where the Bad Woman is complicit in scarring herself in media ritual.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That people need to be told the possible reasons why they shouldn't consider psychopaths heroes is not a failing of any work of fiction in particular. On the other hand, a hero with anti-social tendencies is often a plus. Grettirsaga is great. Really, I read it less as people being confused as to whether they should take Amy as the hero, and more evidence of a weird kind of duel standard. Personally, I have no trouble taking pleasure in bad people being bad, depending upon presentation. Gone Girl is just Bonnie & Clyde without Clyde.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Who fantasizes about themselves being fettered by life itself? Nick Dunne. EDIT: And MRAs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Nick Dunne, maybe. But to the latter, no, sadomasochism is not about being ground down by life. Fair enough. I admit, sadomasochism isn't something I'm particularly familiar with. And watching Sick didn't help elucidate it at all (which I think was the point).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:EDIT: Holy poo poo if you're sick of the pro-MRA arguments go check out the IMDB boards. Lots of threads complaining about the feminist/misandrist agenda in the film, not a single mention of the other angle. Haha, this is beautiful. Guy's so used to a film exclusively sympathizing with an objectifying male gaze that he literally can't handle it when a major female character rejects it, even when said character is a sociopath. That's the thing about this movie: I was writing a review for it and instead of commenting on Fincher's direction, I ended up commenting more on Flynn's writing and on just how many of the story's social and cultural themes are conveyed through multifaceted female characters. Pike, Coon, Dickens, Wilson, Pyle, Schieber, Kirke, and Banes all put in such good performances.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:They really didn't give more than a passing thought to the plot, themes or purpose of any of it, and completely wrote the whole thing off as soon as they decided that it was based on a trashy book with no meaning or substance. With The Dark Knight Rises they basically flat out admitted that they don't care about plot if they like other elements of the movie anyway. That's what kind of destroyed the illusion for me, their tacit admission that they're basically just looking to be distracted by flashy bullshit after several years of hyper-scrutinizing films for their logical inconsistencies and dramatic failings. They basically take the same easy critical positions that a lot of critics take (beating Adam Sandler and Michael Bay movies like a dead horse) and complain about a lack of quality control in contemporary film-making, but then if there are films that actually do subvert emotional and dramatic expectations they only have lukewarm or outright negative things to say.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Phone posted:I find it interesting that the MRA take is getting a lot of play, and it speaks volumes to how the population at large is predisposed to be sympathetic towards the male lead versus the female lead where both of them are awful. They're not equally awful, but Nick isn't someone to aspire to and he's habitually lazy with his lies and manipulation. "Yeah, being a shitbag by cheating on your wife and lying to your sister is pretty bad while saying that you're all about Capital-T The Truth, BUT AT LEAST HE TOTALLY WASN'T GOING TO SEND HIS WIFE TO PRISON THROUGH SOME CRAZY BITCH PLOTTING!" is missing the forest for the trees. I really liked the device of having two unreliable narrators. And the twist is that Nick the MRA stereotype needs Amy to give his life meaning.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
precision posted:Not even sure where people are coming from with comments like "I'll never trust my girlfriend again" or "I don't want to watch this with my significant other". My gf and I enjoyed it, laughed, and left the theater holding hands. The first statement is just old fashioned ignorance, and I really haven't seen it said anywhere (but then I tend not to seek it out). The second is a much more banal kind of sexism, i.e. "Women are irrational and blame the nearest man when they feel slighted by something unimportant, therefore I can't be honest with my girlfriend/watch 'x' movie/listen to 'x' song." It's akin to white folks who don't have that many non-white being really uncomfortable talking about race. In the case of Gone Girl it's only an issue if you actually, deep down, secretly believe that what the movie portrays is necessarily true of all women and isn't blackly comedic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
I feel really bad for all the people who didn't have a little old lady sitting right next to them who started laughing as soon as the journal twist reveal happened and couldn't stop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
LaTex Fetish posted:i've given up on caring if i bother others with laughing. It's really the dumbest thing to feel insecure about unless you're being totally obnoxious. I went to see Rome, Open City a few weeks ago, and I actually got shushed by a humorless witch next to me just for giggling at the part where the priest is turning the saint and Aphrodite sculptures away from each other. Luckily that film has some pretty broad comedy in it, so it didn't happen again, but, Jesus Christ, old people in art house theaters are the worst when it comes to having an emotional reaction to a movie besides scratching your chin and nodding and going, "Hmm, yes, Fellini produced this."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Taear posted:The reason people think it's misogynyist is that it uses the huge MRA tropes that don't happen - like spermjacking. You might say "Well surely that's stupid enough that nobody would think 'yes, women do that'" but they would. I see it in the same vein as Ali G or the Pub Landlord where they start off making fun of a paticular demographic but somehow become heroes of that same demographic because they don't get that it's satirical. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it presumes what makes something racist/misogynistic is merely the presence of 'tropes' that correlate with racist or misogynist ideologies. In this scenario, anyone who believes that there are, in fact, women who have falsified rape allegations or have used pregnancy to entrap men or who are manipulative sociopaths, are by definition misogynistic. But believing or disbelieving that these things happen is actually relatively incidental to what makes you misogynistic, just as it does not actually matter if a racist or so-called non-racist person believes that drug dealing or violence is a problem in poor Black communities. Really, the tacit ignorance of whether or not these tropes technically exist in one way or another is a simplistic rhetorical stance that presumes the importance of superior ideology/political correctness over the recognition and interpretation of facts. What makes someone a misogynist is not simply believing that these tropes exist in one form or another, but believing that these tropes are endemic to women, that women are callous, irrational, materialistic, and manipulative. A misogynist can believe the latter without admitting to any of these tropes because they exist solely as confirmation of bias. It does not actually matter to them that they meet women every day who defy the stereotype, just like it does not matter to, let's call them, 'secular' misogynists and racists that they see more defiance of the stereotype everyday than they do the stereotype itself. People form their beliefs based on pervasive cultural elements but also largely on their individual experience, and they hold fast to these beliefs even in the face of evidence. It's not enough to say that, "An MRA can see this and see what they want to believe," because that's what they already do. MRAs already assume that there is a media conspiracy to depict women as victims and men as aggressors - just like Anthony Cumia would rail all the time about the depiction of Black men as the 'straight' and white guys as the 'foil' in T.V. commercials, even though the disproportionate representation of whites over Blacks in media effectively shows that this actually doesn't occur anywhere outside of his confirmation bias. And as other posters have pointed out, there is no factually determinable consensus on how misogynists and insecure douchebags are reacting to Gone Girl: some see it as evidence for their cause, but most of the materials posted here about it demonstrates the exact opposite, which is that they see Amy's sympathetic depiction in the film as evidence of the feminist media conspiracy. So, it turns out, that misogynists are actually much like people who represent themselves as anti-misogynistic, which is that nobody can actually agree on what Gone Girl means or what its cultural significance is in regards to gender politics and representation. Falling back on the "well, some people could interpret it this way," is a non-argument and it's predicated on an oversimplified understanding of how bigoted attitudes form culturally and individually. People who represent themselves as anti-misogynistic agreeing with presumed misogynistic people on the reading of Gone Girl is not implicitly evidence that the work is what is misogynistic. There is no Amy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Everyone questioning the plausibility of Nick staying with Amy, try watching any given "Real Housewives" series. As painful as the conceit of a man staying with a sociopath just to save face and be famous is, it's completely real, and it betrays the ultimate conceit of the film: This is all from Nick's point of view, but it's no less a celebrity fraud than Amy's.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
He doesn't want a discussion, he's trolling and we bit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2014 00:57
|
|