The Snydermoon: Somehow, Snyder returned with 2 Oscars

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The Snydermoon: Somehow, Snyder returned with 2 Oscars

«‹›15 »

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zA2tRl7d-s

josh04 posted:

There are good zombie films, I just think the concept as executed lends itself to stories about "authentic" humans versus an uncommunicative, primitive other who can be dealt with only via violence, and whatever framework you build on top of that to undercut it or satirise it, it's uncomfortably close to the narratives we use to make the material conditions of migrants and refugees worse.

To put it bluntly, I think zombies are too objectivist for Zack Snyder.

https://twitter.com/fevered_earth/status/1001204986070601729?s=19

safely quarantining my terrible zack snyder opinions here in the snyderdome

# ¿ Jan 31, 2019 00:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 05:50

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Drunkboxer posted:

That zombie movie opinion is one I�ve seen lately and I really think it�s only applicable to a small minority of actual zombie movies. World War Z is the only major one I can think of. A lot are about how humans are the real monsters, or are mostly body horror, or are just pandemic disaster movies with monsters. To me, most are either looking at society or looking inward at our own fragile meat-machine bodies.

Mm, I'm happy to admit it's almost certainly informed by my lack of familiarity with the good zombie poo poo - so it's an opinion formed largely from the debris of zombie media: promotions for TV shows, movie trailers, satires and - worst of all - video games. Which is pretty unfair, but media doesn't get to choose how it's consumed.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2019 00:51

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Slutitution posted:

The notable standout in Snyder's career is a superman film where saving poor people comes off as a tedious, unenthusiastic task for superman.

Every person Superman has to save is yet another person society has otherwise failed. Superman is right to be miserable.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2019 18:36

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Feels like you've accidentally said something really weird about 9/11 survivors there, in your rush to poop on Zack "the Mack" Snyder.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2019 23:41

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

A screenplay isn't a box of resin-cast themes, dude.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2019 01:59

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

It's just a very silly argument. "No-one could adapt this and not be promoting objectivism" with a fall-back when pushed to "Well, no-one as stupid as that idiot Snyder, anyhow!"

But subverting things is not a great mystic art. People do it by accident even, all the time. Rand subverts herself by writing books through which she paints herself as a tedious blowhard. Just dress everyone up as clowns so that when Roark gives his great compelling speech, it is now the speech of a clown. Job done.

Although I am fascinated by the description of Jordan Peterson as someone who professionally describes their politics. That's certainly one way of looking at him.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2019 10:24

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

porfiria posted:

Brother, I have some bad news about CineD...

Hey, I have a STEM degree. And I didn't wash out, I just washed around a bit and kept at it and eventually they gave me some qualifications..

# ¿ Mar 4, 2019 21:24

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Cease to Hope posted:

Yeah, I said so a couple times already.

Clark doesn't struggle with how to help people in the movie I saw. He always does exactly what is necessary to save everyone he can in every scene, except for the tornado, where he doesn't go back in for no clear reason despite the fact that he obviously could at little risk.

The tornado is a big problem for any theory where Clark supposedly struggles with any alternative but inaction. There's no reason at all for him to not choose to go back for the dog himself in the first place, and no clear reason for him not to go back for his father. The former doesn't risk exposure at all, the latter doesn't clearly risk exposure. (If exposure is the problem, why not at least take a moment to point out all the gawking onlookers?) The one time he doesn't choose to dive straight into the fray, he simply chooses to stand stock still and do nothing and help no one.

This isn't a movie where Clark struggles to do the right thing in the right way because, when he acts, it's never a struggle against himself. He rarely makes any decision that isn't already forced on him by circumstances, and even when he does there are no consequences. The deeply strange truck crucifixion doesn't risk any blowback, for example.

Clark absolutely struggles versus inaction. Inaction is often easy, gives fair results, and won't repeatedly destroy your life. Action is unclear, can have wildly unpredictable consequences, and may not make anything better in the long run. Clark rescues a busload of school-kids and the film has Pa Kent, the designated moral guide, refuses to unconditionally endorse that path of action.

Most superhero films conspire against moral ambiguity by avoiding the portrayal of scenarios where inaction might, in fact, be best, or scenarios where action has ambiguous consequences. Iron Man does not take pause to consider whether the President's drone program might make it a better idea to let Killian kill him in Iron Man 3. Man of Steel does not flinch from these scenarios; the guy in the bar is an unqualified rear end in a top hat, but Clark's righteous loving-up of his truck is in no way good. What should he have done, let him harass the waitress? Maybe.

Cease to Hope posted:

the struggle that would need to underlie it.

Quite a struggle, to snap a neck with your bare hands.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2019 21:44

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

There's no sound in Snyder's films. The dialogue is all on old-timey cue cards. It's one of those things where once you notice it, you can't unsee it. Uh, unhear it.

# ¿ Mar 4, 2019 23:30

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Cease, you're hung up entirely on the preconception that "being Superman" and "choosing to save people" are straight-forward, well-defined things and that the tension in the film is over whether or not Clark is going to pick to do them or not. But as you also seem to be aware, the film is not structured to support that. He starts off as a kid doing a 'heroic' act and the course of the film is how a string of thankless, individual 'heroisms' can be made into a meaningful life. At the start of the film he is doing the heroisms, if he can find them, but he does not have a life.

All the way into BvS we never see Superman helping regular people in any way that isn't bundled up with some kind of ambiguity. At the start of Man of Steel we're shown that his 'super' acts are sometimes petty and possibly endangering other people anyhow, and that each time he performs one he abandons the life he's built to that point. It's deeply miserable. You're describing them as if the filmmakers hosed up and you're doing corrective work by understanding them as unambiguously good and evidence that Clark will always choose the right thing.

The villain of MoS is a man who explicitly rejects consequences and explicitly rejects judgement on the basis of having to chose - "Every action I take no matter how violent or how cruel is for the greater good of my people." You're describing the film as if Clark's character arc is the story of how he came to believe this.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 10:00

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Why doesn't Clark save him? His father told him not to. It's that simple. Clark's relationship to his powers is not (and can not be) bending the world to his will or petulantly insisting he can save everyone given enough time or effort.

The scene is there to show us that Pa Kent's advice to Clark, to consider his actions and his heroism in a wider picture, is not cowardly or craven - the charge levelled by most people barking on about Objectivism in Man of Steel. Pa Kent lives his own advice and dies in a regular human act of heroism. The necessity of this aspect of the scene should be clear from the number of people who deliberately ignore it.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 10:35

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

^ hoot hoot

Cease to Hope posted:

How does the film show us that that is the reason Clark doesn't save him?

Because I don't think it does show it that. It is certainly a thing that happens in this movie, but I want to know how the movie shows us that this is important to Clark, so much so that he is willing to watch his father die when he wasn't willing to watch anyone else die. This movie begins with Clark getting himself blown up because he isn't willing to watch people die, and ends with killing a man because he isn't willing to watch people die.

Well there's a scene where his father suggests that he should consider not saving people immediately before, and then in the scene itself they talk and Pa Kent says "no, you go over there and don't come with me", and then when Pa Kent is stuck Clark looks at him, then looks at the people, then looks at him and Pa Kent shakes his head a tiny little bit.

e: if you meant the latter half, the film shows that by having the villain be a fascist instead of the hero.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 10:49

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Cease to Hope posted:

I don't think that gives us enough insight to understand what drives him to follow his dad's instructions despite the obvious consequences. It isn't the only scene that could use a lot more access to Clark's inner life, but it's the most striking one.

This wouldn't make sense, because the scene is Clark's inner life, insofar as it is accessible. The idea that you can track back through someone's source code, the list of inputs that made them, and determine how they will most consistently act in any given scenario, is one for fascists and Krpytonians.

The film is committed to showing Clark as a free actor; showing his actions as determined would cut directly against that.

All have is a past, a list of things that happened, and when we remember it we actively bring the interpretation, the narrative, the inner life, to it. The present exists only as definite actions. The film resolutely avoids subjectivity evaluating anyone's actions in the scene even as it's explicitly shown from Clark's viewpoint, his father disappearing magically into the dust. These things happened to Clark, this is how he's acting now. Draw your own conclusions.

And naturally the conclusions people draw reflect more on themselves than on the film: "his father was an idiot, not a hero!" "If I were there I would have saved everyone!" "The film would be better if it showed how Clark was forced into this decision!"

e: this follows for the surrender sequence: Clark is terrified; his confidence wavers; but he chooses to ask a priest to ask for advice, on whether or not he should engage in self-sacrifice. A priest.

josh04 fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Mar 5, 2019

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 11:35

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Cease to Hope posted:

The idea that we can and often should clearly understand a fictional character's motivation for doing something in a scene is fascist? Am I reading this correctly?

There is a line you're hopping back and forth over between showing who a character is and what informs their decision making, and showing us that they are compelled to act as-so in a given situation. You want to know why Clark is "driven" to let his father die, but what happens in the film is that he chooses to.

Again, the villain's creed in MoS is "Every action I take no matter how violent or how cruel is for the greater good of my people." What you're asking for in the tornado scene is for the greater good to be more visible, more explained, more justified. But the film rejects the greater good as an accessible object.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 13:08

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

The tornado scene and the church scene are divided into past and present. In the past, all decisions are fixed. In the present, decisions must be made, and in deciding to seek advice in the church Clark is actually having a moment of moral weakness. It's not like he doesn't know what's right.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 14:08

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

RBA Starblade posted:

They probably should have had the child actor in the tornado scene instead of Cavill tbh

This is probably the call I'd make to improve the scene, but child actors suck so bad and Cavil is pretty distinctive-looking so I can see why they didn't. Maybe they should have CG'd him younger. Mustache removal for the soul.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 15:00

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

CityMidnightJunky posted:

Do you genuinely believe this? I get liking something someone else doesn't, but I really don't get acting so defensive about a bog standard superhero film that you have to write essays about why it's this deep, philosophical masterpiece and get arsey to anyone who disagrees. Why do you care so much?

People sure do write a lot of interesting interpretations of Zack Snyder films to deflect from them being awful movies.

Man of Steel is fun because it will support having a philosophy laid on top of it. The heroes and the villains have meaningful, distinct worldviews that are in contradiction. If you try to do this with most superhero films, one side or the other rapidly crumbles away into absurdity. Iron Man is absurd as a superhero who won't divest himself of his arms company. Wonder Woman is (delightfully) absurd as the pacifist fighting war who absolutely loves combat. Bane is absurd, the revolutionary who is secretly in the pocket of big business.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 16:31

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Well now hold on, Bane literally has a scene where he tells the weaselly businessman "and you think your money gives you power over me?" and then starts up his fake populist uprising

I meant Miranda Tate!

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 20:10

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Grimoire is such a specific word choice. Slutitution are you trying to make Rand sound like a rad as hell capitalism witch? Are you secretly be objectivest?

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 21:41

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Slutitution posted:

It's because Objectivism is much more in line with witchcraft than scholarly works. The Fountainhead is simply too extremist to be called a 'tome' or a 'novel'.

'Grimoire' is a much more fitting term than 'novel' due to the fact that Objectivism put into practice by a society would be even more unrealistic and disastrous than trying to summon a demon from a pentagram like a witch.

This is a surprisingly strong criticism of Alan Greenspan's time as the head of the Federal Reserve, but probably not entirely undeserved.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2019 22:58

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Mr. Apollo posted:

The Watchman Q&A is going on right now and Snyder is talking about criticisms of his portrayal of superheros and Batman in particular. He's saying the he had people come up to him and get mad because "their" Batman would never kill anyone. He said "I'd tell them that's cool but you're living in a dream world."

https://twitter.com/boomborks/status/1109673855402930176

# ¿ Mar 24, 2019 11:20

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Did anyone bring up Rand/The Fountainhead?

# ¿ Mar 25, 2019 10:08

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Impressed but unsurprised that he did the exact two things that could make me respect him more.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2019 11:14

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

https://twitter.com/BlackLionAuthor/status/1110184683155812354

Praising Ayn Rand works to own the objectivist Zack Snyder.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2019 21:09

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

And the frankly alarming number of people who think the takeaway from TDKR is that even fascist Batman appropriately hated guns and killing and was therefore Good.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2019 23:16

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

There is no meaningful compatibility between "Batman regularly engages in physical violence" and "Batman never kills". Is Batman out there with his Bat-Eggshell-skull detector?

"never kill" is solely a point of ideological fantasy, a comic book version of being told that our cruise missiles are so accurate that they will only ever hit enemy combatant weddings.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 09:52

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

ElNarez posted:

You haven't read Watchmen in a hot minute if you think the violence in it doesn't call attention to itself in a deliberately stylized way for effect. (Note also the caption, taken from dialogue in a scene happening at the same time and juxtaposed with the violence, again, for effect.)

And, y'know, as a point of fact, the sexual aspect of it all is also completely intended in Watchmen. This is page #15 of issue 3, it ends with Laurie lighting a cigarette.

People perform all sorts of contortions to Watchmen to make it so the movie version can be bad and evil while the comic is morally good. Did you know you're supposed to hate Rorschach? That's why they gave him a coward's death, i.e. on his feet staring down God:

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 10:26

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Nodosaur posted:

I'm not making any kind of moral standpoint about either version of Watchmen. I'm talking about what each version does and doesn't communicate very well. My stance is the comic is better at getting its point across, i.e. better made.

I didn't necessarily mean you, it's one I see on twitter quite a lot, e.g:
https://twitter.com/praxxxxxis/status/1110443131919577088
https://twitter.com/CorridorComix/status/1110423135382233089
https://twitter.com/Foywonder/status/1110364980401049600
https://twitter.com/dashstander/status/1110354974699970560
https://twitter.com/FactsMatterPpl/status/1110347217494138880

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 10:42

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Batman in BvS is a considerably shittier character than Rorschach, that's what's funny. Rorschach's a hateful reactionary who lusts for violence, but at least he was never rich.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 10:54

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Without wishing to join in the pile-on, the idea of consequence-free, "targeted" or "non-lethal" violence is used to justify all kinds of horrible poo poo.

e: much like Batman, the taser is a "non-lethal" weapon with a lengthy track record of killing people.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 11:36

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Personal preference, but I like the way Batman being an unrepentant murderer in BvS sets him up as a total hypocrite for his appearance in Suicide Squad as the long arm of the deep state.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 12:26

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

SpiderHyphenMan posted:

Submitted for your approval:
Batman DOES NOT Kill

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 13:09

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

LinYutang posted:

https://twitter.com/mywifecameback/status/1109857087331463169?s=19

It'd be exhausting to bother trying to push back on this point, but the symbolism in the church isn't that he's being Christ-like, it's that his Christian upbringing and morality are looming over him.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 13:45

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

RBA Starblade posted:

It's also that he's Christ-like let's be honest

It's not like you need to take someone to a Church and have them talk to a priest just to communicate that. Just have him t-pose all the time, like the rest of the film.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 14:02

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

https://twitter.com/OMGWTFBIBLE/status/1110340754357002240

People should feel bad to have such mediocre dreamworlds, imo.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 14:17

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Superman can't be Christ, he's busy being King Arthur.

Nodosaur posted:

https://youtu.be/EVwSbIdqdXM

While the robot Batman is driven mad with guilt, real Batman repeatedly attempts to murder him. He brains him with a bottle of acid and takes a broadsword to his chest.

Franchescanado posted:

There's actually a current DC storyline (Heroes in Crisis) where Batman has created a therapy super computer for heroes and villains to anonymously (as their regular, non-super alter ego, ie, Bruce Wayne) get treatment for their mental health issues.

Apropos of nothing, this sounds like a Rick and Morty script.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 15:03

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Nodosaur posted:

While the robot is driven mad with guilt, Bruce is at the bottom of a hole, and the robot kills himself.

Batman is defending himself, yes, but none of those actions kill the duplicant, and he�s faced these things and is fully aware of how durable they are.

Like, I'm not necessarily on board with SMG's "there's no rule" because it's all fiction anyway so even if someone has spelled it out text, well, whatever. But imo what's interesting about that clip is that Batman, because he's not a robot, is totally flexing the rules because the robot's adherence to them is it's weakness. The robot pulls a gun, as if to shoot Batman, but can't and aims instead for the bottles of acid. Batman pauses, realises he has the advantage, and swings one straight at the robot's face. Only the sprinkler saves BatBot.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 15:23

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Franchescanado posted:

SMG posited that not a single action scene featuring Silk Spectre 2 involves male gaze. So I specifically watched a video of only Silk Spectre 2 action scenes to see if there was anything that could objectively be argued as Male Gaze, and found that scene. If it were so hard to find an example of Male Gaze, it's amazing I managed to do it with a 4 minute clip of a 2+ hour movie. (It's not.)

Are we saying that there has to be a minimum amount of screen time for something to qualify as Male Gaze?

Does Snyder get a pass for this scene because it doesn't have as much male gaze as other scenes directed by Joss Whedon or Michael "Booty Shot" Bay?

That Watchmen depicts fetishism doesn't make the depiction itself fetishistic. In-universe, Silk Spectre's costume is diegetically the result of objectification and is a representation of how "The female body [is] a site of oppression". The film itself largely refrains from indulging this, consistently obscuring both the costume and the body in camera, which is evident in the screencap.

The male gaze isn't something like the Bechdel test, where it's a simple test you can apply and say "this passes, this fails". It's psychoanalysis. I'm sure you could do a psychoanalytic read on Watchmen - but it'd probably be more interested in the class of viewer which it makes unreasonably angry than the class of viewer getting off to it - and I'm sure you could do a feminist critique of Watchmen, which is a big sausagefest, but the male gaze doesn't seem hugely useful to me. Not least because Silk Spectre ends up being a fairly marginal character, which is a flaw in itself.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 18:11

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

Franchescanado posted:

_{^ this is from the opening credits, not the sexual assault that occurs later}

Not to go too far into objectification, but this is literally a mannequin.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 18:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 05:50

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:

This is what throws me - the typical claim about male gaze (outside of Mulvey's, to be clear) is that the image of women on film is constructed for the delectation of hetero males. However, this is flattened into "a physically active woman should be carefully posed so that I don't think her raised knee is an invitation to sex."

This is like the Mike Pence version of heterosexuality, this absurd idea that a woman's presence is inherently sexual and a responsible filmmaker would take great care to not accidentally depict her in a way that may inflame the lusts of men. I say that because what you're pointing out takes place in like half a second, this is very much a "you can see the word SEX in Lion King" subliminal scenario.

Worse than that, it misses what makes Snyder's women "gazey".

In the dream sequence where Bruce imagines/remembers his parents dying, he remembers his mothers bright red lips, wide grin and pearl necklace - this is sexualized for a particular reason.

Lois Lane is a sexualized character in the sense that the implication that she's older than Clark and leads the relationship, teaches him the ropes, etc. THAT is the fantasy (and it's the commonality of Snyder's work with women, what he fetishizes is brashness/toughness), not that you can see her collarbone or whatever. The "sexy" part of that Wonder Woman sequence is not her thighs but the fact that she gets knocked down and isn't fazed. She makes a face indicating that she wants some more, whereas tough guy Batman spends his "fight" with Doomsday narrowly avoiding being killed, and that seems to be closer to Snyder's take on sexuality.

Obviously that has some similar implications about how women are presented in film but it's weird to look at that and go, boy this guy sure loves butts huh?

This is a real good post that would otherwise loiter at the bottom of the previous page.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2019 18:34

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > The Snydermoon: Somehow, Snyder returned with 2 Oscars

«‹›15 »