A noob's journey through cinema

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:11 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:09 am
I'm about convinced it's a lost cause at this point to reiterate the film's Eros/Thanatos mission, but I think the film should be judged on this intention rather than reduced to sex/death banality.
You saw Eros/Thanatos, I saw sex/death redundancy. I understand that the intent is the former. I got the latter. It's not about me understanding the film or it's intent. And if I rewatch it in the future I will try to apply the lens of some of the deeper elements we discussed. But nothing in this conversation has really been an "a-ha" moment for me. I personally think that the lack of impact for me is due to choices made by the film, and I get that you think that it's due to my pre-conceived notions about the film or its creator.

And in terms of describing Kidman being skeevy, it would never occur to me to subgroup attractive thin white women based on hip or breast size. To me, pretty thin white women is the subgroup. I didn't walk away from the film with an impression of anyone's breast size, and so honestly it was a little off putting to read your remarks about her breast size and then read the other remark in the article comparing actresses' pubic hair. It's just another reminder of the way that female bodies are put on display, critiqued,
and cataloged in a way that is very much out of proportion to their male peers.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:14 pm

Wooley wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:43 pm
Image
I think the more Woody Allen movies I saw, the more jaded I got with his entire persona (even putting aside all that is happening in his real life). On my most recent rewatch, I got so annoyed by Allen's character, I couldn't get invested in the main relationship. Those feelings were already there before, but now I wasn't able to enjoy the movie like I used to anymore.
I recently made a joke on twitter that "in a parallel universe, Diane Keaton directed a movie called Alvy Singer which is about her remembering a prior relationship with this gigantic dork". That was my problem with the movie the last time. I saw it from Diane Keaton's perspective, and Alvy was just the worst guy. Constantly putting her down, overly jealous and making her feel guilty for not having enough sex with him. Sure, the movie kinda acknowledges that he is somewhat of a jerk, but the entire movie is build up around him fondly remembering this past relationship, and all I could think was how she probably doesn't feel the same way about it as he does. It made me think of all the terrible guys friends of mine dated and how much they got on my nerves. I admit, all of this is me bringing in my own personal baggage, and probably not the movie's fault, but it kinda broke the movie for me.

I do admit that "Sex with you is a very Kafka-esque experience" still makes me laugh.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:51 pm

Some recent (re)watches:

Fat City (1972)
A great example of those low key, character-driven dramas that the seventies excelled at. Perfectly fits in with PAYDAY, FIVE EASY PIECES and all those movies that I love so much. Susan Tyrell and Stacey Keach are great as these two lonely, broken people, who can only find refugee in booze and, occasionally, each other. Keach is so relentlessly raw, while Tyrell is just outstanding as this desperate, yet grand, figure, who doesn't even tries to hide her sadness. A really boyish-looking Jeff Bridges is a nice addition to the cast, though he still needed to grow into his talents (not that he is bad, not at all, but he hadn't hit his peak yet so early in his career).

Coco (2017)
It was fine, but the whole "family hates music" thing felt so contrived it rendered the entire film as rather trivial. Pixar didn't used to dumb down their stories so much in the past right?
The more realistic Pixar's animation becomes, the less I end up caring.

The Blues Brothers (1980)
Hadn't seen this in forever and honestly, it was kinda shocking to see a full-blooded comedy that looks like an actual movie. Most comedies nowadays are just strings of partially-improvised sequences and look like sitcoms with slightly more expensive sets.
The Blues Brothers will never be an absolute favorite movie but it is undeniable how this movie is able to work as a comedy, a musical and an action movie as well. It hits every beat it needs to hit. Remarkable.

Memories of Murder (2003)
After this and Parasite I'm just in awe of Bong's craft. He is not exactly a stylish filmmaker like his peer Park Chan Wook, but the way he plays with tone is just masterful, precise yet unafraid.

California Split (1974)
A great portrayal of addiction, perhaps so striking because it's the rare movie that doesn't focus on alcoholism or any other kind of substance abuse. By choosing gambling, it allows the filmmakers to fully focus on the mentality of it all and not just the physical effects.
This might also be my favorite Gould performance. Yes, above even The Long Goodbye, I know.

Out of the Past (1947)
"That's not the way to win"
"Is there a way to win?"
"There's a way to lose more slowly."

Perfect dialogue from a perfect movie.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:54 pm

Slentert wrote:
Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:41 am
I'm probably seeing Man With a Movie Camera on the big screen somewhere next month, so I'll get back to you about that!
@Popcorn
I saw "Man" last week and was really impressed by it. Not the gut punch that Sunrise was for me, but so inventive and ingenious.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:12 pm

Slentert wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:54 pm
@Popcorn
I saw "Man" last week and was really impressed by it. Not the gut punch that Sunrise was for me, but so inventive and ingenious.
Sweet. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'll have to check out Sunrise soon.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Wooley » Wed Nov 13, 2019 11:21 pm

Slentert wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:14 pm
I think the more Woody Allen movies I saw, the more jaded I got with his entire persona (even putting aside all that is happening in his real life). On my most recent rewatch, I got so annoyed by Allen's character, I couldn't get invested in the main relationship. Those feelings were already there before, but now I wasn't able to enjoy the movie like I used to anymore.
I recently made a joke on twitter that "in a parallel universe, Diane Keaton directed a movie called Alvy Singer which is about her remembering a prior relationship with this gigantic dork". That was my problem with the movie the last time. I saw it from Diane Keaton's perspective, and Alvy was just the worst guy. Constantly putting her down, overly jealous and making her feel guilty for not having enough sex with him. Sure, the movie kinda acknowledges that he is somewhat of a jerk, but the entire movie is build up around him fondly remembering this past relationship, and all I could think was how she probably doesn't feel the same way about it as he does. It made me think of all the terrible guys friends of mine dated and how much they got on my nerves. I admit, all of this is me bringing in my own personal baggage, and probably not the movie's fault, but it kinda broke the movie for me.

I do admit that "Sex with you is a very Kafka-esque experience" still makes me laugh.
I actually didn't like Allen for most of my life (liked a couple of his movies some, Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy, Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask), but generally wasn't into him.
Then, at like 36 years old, I saw Annie Hall.
And I was like, "Oh, the guy's a fucking genius. If this is the only movie he ever made, he goes down as a genius." I'd put it on my very short list of Great Films, probably Top 100, maybe Top 50.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Stu » Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:38 am

Slentert wrote:
Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:44 am
When Blade Runner 2049 came out in 2017 I fell completely in love with it and it was my favorite movie of that year, it was the perfect movie for my 16 years old, science fiction loving self. It was like someone made a movie just for me. But I have only seen it that one time in the theater and I have been scared to rewatch it since, suspicious that it might not hold up. So I rewatched it last night just to finally find out.

I still like it. Not as much as I used to but it's better than it has any right to be, being a sequel to a 35-year old cult movie that arguably didn't need one, made in hellscape that is the current studio climate. It's a miracle that it came out as well as it did.

It's weird. During it's original release a lot of people around me complained "nothing happens in that movie" but now I feel like it's almost to plotty for a Blade Runner sequel. Too many side-stories and characters that don't really go anywhere, like those fuckin' revolutionaries who disappear as suddenly as they initially popped up.

Jared Leto still remains the worst aspect of it all. I've never seen anyone overact in such a passive manner. It would almost be impressive if he wasn't so annoying.
Luckily, he is only in like five minutes of the movie.

I'm not the biggest fan of Ryan Gosling when he is in his intense-staring-mode, I prefer him when he is allowed to be charming or funny or at least something that resembles a human being, but man, his sad giant puppy eyes work perfectly in this.

Not my favorite movie of 2017 anymore but it sits comfortably around the 4th or 5th spot now.
I actually just wrote a defense of 2049 over in the YMCA, and in the interest of continuing the general discussion of it on this site, I'll respond here as well; I'd have to say that I kind of initially had the opposite reaction to it that you did, in the sense that I thought it was a pretty good film with some great individual aspects, that was nonetheless held back from reaching overall greatness by its unnecessarily long length, glacially-slow pacing, and its occasionally overly cryptic, alienating mood (hellooo, Leto!). Still, when I rewatched it last December, I knew what to expect from it regarding those issues, so they didn't bother me quite as much the 2nd time, which allowed the positive aspects of it to shine through stronger, whether it be the way that it respected the vision of the original film while still managing to expand upon its world, or the rich exploration of its big, thought-provoking IDEAS (as only the best Sci-Fi can do) with the challenging ways it explores the fleeting, unsure natures of memory, identity, and reality itself, or its concept of replicants contributing to the existence of yet another group of 2nd-class citizens that's seen in the "relationship" between K & Joi, or the ever-thinning line that supposedly still separates man from his creations in the film, or the way that it's still fairly unparalleled as a pure sensory experience (especially back in theaters, which makes me glad I saw it when it was still running), with its various, overwhelming sights and sounds. It's still held back some by its flaws, so it's not like it's a GOAT movie or anything, but I too am glad that Warnes Brothers took such a big risk (and subsequent loss) in producing it, and I can confidentally say that it's officially graduated from being just "pretty good" to comfortably being "very good", so it's a step in the right direction, eh?
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Wooley » Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:05 pm

Stu wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:38 am
I actually just wrote a defense of 2049 over in the YMCA, and in the interest of continuing the general discussion of it on this site, I'll respond here as well; I'd have to say that I kind of initially had the opposite reaction to it that you did, in the sense that I thought it was a pretty good film with some great individual aspects, that was nonetheless held back from reaching overall greatness by its unnecessarily long length, glacially-slow pacing, and its occasionally overly cryptic, alienating mood (hellooo, Leto!). Still, when I rewatched it last December, I knew what to expect from it regarding those issues, so they didn't bother me quite as much the 2nd time, which allowed the positive aspects of it to shine through stronger, whether it be the way that it respected the vision of the original film while still managing to expand upon its world, or the rich exploration of its big, thought-provoking IDEAS (as only the best Sci-Fi can do) with the challenging ways it explores the fleeting, unsure natures of memory, identity, and reality itself, or its concept of replicants contributing to the existence of yet another group of 2nd-class citizens that's seen in the "relationship" between K & Joi, or the ever-thinning line that supposedly still separates man from his creations in the film, or the way that it's still fairly unparalleled as a pure sensory experience (especially back in theaters, which makes me glad I saw it when it was still running), with its various, overwhelming sights and sounds. It's still held back some by its flaws, so it's not like it's a GOAT movie or anything, but I too am glad that Warnes Brothers took such a big risk (and subsequent loss) in producing it, and I can confidentally say that it's officially graduated from being just "pretty good" to comfortably being "very good", so it's a step in the right direction, eh?
I just thought the script wasn't very good.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1639
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Nov 14, 2019 4:37 pm

I remember watching Annie Hall when I was 14 or so and it felt like a rite of passage, a glimpse into a more "adult" world compared to the stuff I was used to (both in real-life and in the movies). but there is a lot of narcissistic self-loathing in his persona. it is what it is.
oddly enough I think I watched it with my mom then :shifty:
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Stu » Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:43 pm

Wooley wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 12:05 pm
I just thought the script wasn't very good.
What was your main issue with it?
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:41 pm

I rewatched All That Jazz this day. I don't think it entirely works as a drama but as a musical, man, it is just outstanding.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1930
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:57 pm

All That Jazz is a personal favorite of mine. For some reason though, I haven't gotten around to any of Fosse's other films yet. Should probably do so someday.
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:07 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 9:57 pm
All That Jazz is a personal favorite of mine. For some reason though, I haven't gotten around to any of Fosse's other films yet. Should probably do so someday.
It's a personal favorite of mine as well, I wasn't knocking it, to be clear. It's probably my second favorite musical after Singin' In The Rain.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:13 am

Lenny is one of my favorite biopics. I hate so many of the conventions of that genre, but Fosse's innovative appraoch avoids all of them.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:44 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:11 pm
I get that you think that it's due to my pre-conceived notions about the film or its creator.
I was thinking that you had used your '99 experience as a prelude to give context so I have been applying that. Ultimately, though, I think that our impasse is simply due to having very divergent perspectives on the subject matter. You're not interested in it, for example. And that's fine, the film is very much a heterosexual man's dilemma. Also, since I tend to cavort in more libertine social circles, certain problems, like Kama Sutra illustrations, are issues that baffle me. I think we're just bringing different experiences to the film.


Takoma1 wrote:
Wed Nov 13, 2019 9:11 pm
And in terms of describing Kidman being skeevy, it would never occur to me to subgroup attractive thin white women based on hip or breast size. To me, pretty thin white women is the subgroup. I didn't walk away from the film with an impression of anyone's breast size, and so honestly it was a little off putting to read your remarks about her breast size and then read the other remark in the article comparing actresses' pubic hair. It's just another reminder of the way that female bodies are put on display, critiqued, and cataloged in a way that is very much out of proportion to their male peers.
Grouping by body frame is a pretty common metric for athletes, male and female, and, yes, fashion models as well. I singled out Kidman's breast size because you had mentioned the homogeneity of the breasts as a specific motif throughout the film. It was a parenthetical aside, after thought really. But it's also a fact, a fact which Kidman has nothing to be ashamed of. I have no responsibility for whoever this critic with the pubic hair expertise is, so I'm not going to bother defending him. It sucks that simply describing a breast has to invoke the gym class locker room, which is a classic metaphor for immaturity. I dunno, I always cut gym class anyway.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:25 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:44 am
Also, since I tend to cavort in more libertine social circles, certain problems, like Kama Sutra illustrations, are issues that baffle me. I think we're just bringing different experiences to the film.
When I mentioned the Kama Sutra, it wasn't as a prudish reaction to the content of it. It was pointing out the progression that took place in terms of the filming of the orgy, which evolved from an abstract, erotically charged dance to female dancers being told they had to be entirely nude and to use the Kama Sutra to pick a sex pose. I know that there are people who do erotic work (I count among my friends and acquaintences sex workers of many different varieties), but I think that there's a way that women are asked/expected to make their bodies available that I find off-putting.
Grouping by body frame is a pretty common metric for athletes, male and female, and, yes, fashion models as well. I singled out Kidman's breast size because you had mentioned the homogeneity of the breasts as a specific motif throughout the film. It was a parenthetical aside, after thought really. But it's also a fact, a fact which Kidman has nothing to be ashamed of. I have no responsibility for whoever this critic with the pubic hair expertise is, so I'm not going to bother defending him. It sucks that simply describing a breast has to invoke the gym class locker room, which is a classic metaphor for immaturity. I dunno, I always cut gym class anyway.
If I didn't have to hear/read/experience constant commentary on the female body, I probably wouldn't have such a knee-jerk reaction to hearing men (in any context) talk about breast size. The idea that Kidman's body is in some meaningful way different from the women in the orgy is baffling to me.

I will very, very occasionally say something about a male body, but I mostly don't. Because I know that that stuff can really mess some people up. Life is hard enough without reminders that someone is always keeping track of whether you're a B cup or a C cup.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:36 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:25 am
The idea that Kidman's body is in some meaningful way different from the women in the orgy is baffling to me.
In a male analogy, imagine an Eddie Redmayne among Hemsworths.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:25 am
I will very, very occasionally say something about a male body, but I mostly don't. Because I know that that stuff can really mess some people up.
Not everyone can find a religion that will let them be their messiah. :P I kid Tom, but I do hope that one day we can get past such silly hang-ups. That's a big part of what Eyes Wide Shut is about.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:25 am
Life is hard enough without reminders that someone is always keeping track of whether you're a B cup or a C cup.
Hey, IMDb in the house!

But seriously, ftr, I don't keep track of any quantitative attributes for women (except the occasional birthday - I have a thing for Monkeys), and there's plenty of less-endowed actresses that I find immensely attractive. I'm more of an eyes guy.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:57 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:36 am
But seriously, ftr, I don't keep track of any quantitative attributes for women (except the occasional birthday - I have a thing for Monkeys), and there's plenty of less-endowed actresses that I find immensely attractive. I'm more of an eyes guy.
It's not about preference, it's about categorization and objectification. I think that a lot of men think that statements like the underlined are gentlemanly or something, but they are just as harmful and do just as much to draw your awareness to the male gaze as someone raving over a well-endowed model.

Consider reading maybe ten threads on the main page and seeing how many of them contain comments about female bodies. How many images of nude or semi-nude women do you think I could find in 5 minutes on this site? It doesn't matter whether people are all praising the same body type or if each person is talking about different attributes. It's just overwhelming and emotionally damaging, and it doesn't matter how "civilized" or egalitarian people think they're being in their comments.

This is why I apply such a high level of scrutiny to films like Eyes Wide Shut. The assumption and expectation of access to female bodies is hugely prevalent in our society, and when films (even those that are in theory critiquing that aspect of society) repeatedly point the camera at naked female bodies (with no proportional presence of male bodies), I often take issue with it. I return to the idea that you don't have to actually put naked bodies on screen to convey exploitation (just as the director of Lilya 4 Ever never had to *show* a sexual assault to convey the horror and exploitation of his main character).
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:55 am

Sorry, Takoma. I like female beauty. Their beauty doesn't obscure the fact that I also like their company. I don't see anything wrong when women also get thirsty over specific aspects of men like abs or hair or panther vampire eyes. We are a sexually responsive species. I don't feel that it's my fault when that underlined sentence can't be distinguished from locker room talk. I have no guilt about my capacity for meaningful relationships with women.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by LEAVES » Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:34 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:55 am
Sorry, Takoma. I like female beauty. Their beauty doesn't obscure the fact that I also like their company. I don't see anything wrong when women also get thirsty over specific aspects of men like abs or hair or panther vampire eyes. We are a sexually responsive species. I don't feel that it's my fault when that underlined sentence can't be distinguished from locker room talk. I have no guilt about my capacity for meaningful relationships with women.
Just because you like something doesn't mean that it's right to voice your preferences.

See: Catcalling. And, no, language about women is not the same as language about men. See: Catcalling, among almost every aspect of female public life. That you can have a meaningful relationship doesn't mean that your language doesn't contribute to an objectifying and often threateningly aggressive culture.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:01 am

LEAVES wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:34 am
Just because you like something doesn't mean that it's right to voice your preferences.
I think I'm going to voice my preferences.


LEAVES wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 5:34 am
See: Catcalling.
Again, I'm terribly sorry that my underlined comment above can't be distinguished from catcalling. I sorry that people are losing the ability to distinguish a lot of things. Saying that my appreciation of women's eyes ("windows of the soul" as they say) is contributing to exploitation, abuse or "emotional damage", is fucking absurd.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by LEAVES » Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:58 am

You're right, the bodies you're talking about aren't people, and I'm sure they just LOVE to know that men across the world are publicly expressing preferences about their bodies. It's completely unrelated to catcalling. Totally not creepy.

There are differences. Small numbers of people expressing preferences about a woman's body in person is different from large numbers of people expressing preferences about a woman's body on the internet. I'm not ready to state that it's better, though, and not worse as a social phenomenon. Sure, your individual contribution is certainly less bad. If that's how you choose to base your actions, then...
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:33 am

LEAVES wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:58 am
You're right, the bodies you're talking about aren't people, and I'm sure they just LOVE to know that men across the world are publicly expressing preferences about their bodies. It's completely unrelated to catcalling. Totally not creepy.
Allow me to explain it to you.

Let's look at my underlined offense language.
Jinnistan wrote:there's plenty of less-endowed actresses that I find immensely attractive.
What am I saying here? Am I expressing a preference? Or am I saying that, in fact, I'm flexible when it comes to a variety of women's body types and that my attraction is not narrowly dictated by a rigid standard of beauty? Absent an expression of a preference, why is this sentence so offensive? If I'm capable of aesthetically appreciating a variety of body types, what then is my standard of attraction?
Jinnistan wrote:I'm more of an eyes guy
Besides a horrible pun, what am I saying here? Putting aside the cliche of soul windows, let's consider the possibility that eyes are actually the most personally expressive parts of the human body and the preeminent determinant of a person's acuity and emotional temper. Being the most personally expressive part of the body, it is therefore the least possible body part to objectify, because as objects they become eyeballs which are deprived of an animated personality. (For the record, I am not into eyeballs.) So what I'm saying here is identical to what I said above, which is that personal qualities take precedence in determining my attraction, and the entire notion of objectification is the elimination of the person from the meat puppet. I am here rejecting the non-personal reduction of a woman to a flesh toy.

I would apologize for being unclear, but it happens to be perfectly clear. Perhaps someone will claim that "personal qualities" is some kind of categorical box that I'm forcing women into. I wish I could be surprised at the moment.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by LEAVES » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:57 am

Honestly, the thing that caught my attention was the super, super creepy post that I initially quoted. I don't much care to analyze every instance of your behavior, but I certainly stand by the words I said. Your whole "I have a black friend" defense aka "I have meaningful relationships with women" is weird in every context.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:09 am

Thanks for playing.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Wooley » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:57 am

Stu wrote:
Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:43 pm
What was your main issue with it?
I thought it was either meandering away from the point or trying way way too hard to make it most of the time. The stuff with Leto was, I thought, really ill-conceived and almost completely pointless, a real drag especially since it was essentially the climax of the film. That whole long exposition dump that was really unrewarding anyway kinda killed whatever goodwill the better aspects of the film had earned for me. I love slow-paced films, but they have to have a point and points of contact along the way and I wasn't sure, in the end that it wasn't an hour and a half long film, that wasn't a very rewarding conclusion to the story, stretched by an hour just to be long and slow-paced.
That's off the top of my head, I'll have to give it some more thought to be more specific.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:50 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 4:55 am
Sorry, Takoma. I like female beauty. Their beauty doesn't obscure the fact that I also like their company. I don't see anything wrong when women also get thirsty over specific aspects of men like abs or hair or panther vampire eyes. We are a sexually responsive species. I don't feel that it's my fault when that underlined sentence can't be distinguished from locker room talk. I have no guilt about my capacity for meaningful relationships with women.
There are plenty of physical aspects that I enjoy in the people I'm attracted to. But you'd be hard pressed to name them because I keep those thoughts in my head.

While it's less odious to hear "gentlemanly" objective comments about female bodies than "locker room talk", the part that is overwhelming and upsetting is just casual, unthinking way that men feel free to comment (and post images of) female bodies. It is ubiquitous. In fact, there are people out there who seem to think they're doing some sort of public service by being like "Oh, I like small breasts" or "I'm even attracted to some plus-sized women!". It's not WHAT you're saying. It's not HOW you are saying it. It's the fact that you are saying it in the first place, adding just another voice to a deafening chorus of commentary on female bodies. Would you like to have a quick contest in which I collect examples of male "thirst" and you collect female examples from this site? I struggle to imagine myself posting a nude or semi-nude image of a man (on this site or anywhere else), yet it's something few men seem to hesitate about.

I weigh the right that I have to talk openly about male bodies against the harm or hurt feelings it might cause, and it's not a hard decision. A handful of men on this site (or maybe back on RT) talked about feeling body image pressure, so while I don't think that I ever posted much about male bodies, I'm just more careful about it now. I know several women (and a handful of men) who struggle with body issues and/or eating disorders, so why be part of that problem?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:27 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:50 pm
why be part of that problem?
Whatever problem that has happened here is not my problem. Any misconstrual issues you took away from my comments are not my fault. You are projecting a great deal of baggage onto a comment that cannot support that weight. I'm not going to be a vehicle for victimhood here.

I like it when Howard Stern admits to having a small penis: "The truth will set you free". It's these silly hang-ups that we need to evolve beyond. Chaste language policing will not help the problem. More candor and understanding will. I have no obligation to keep my thoughts to myself, and no one else does either. And, please, stop trying to blame me for that NSFW thread that I never posted in.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:41 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:27 pm
Whatever problem that has happened here is not my problem. Any misconstrual issues you took away from my comments are not my fault. You are projecting a great deal of baggage onto a comment that cannot support that weight. I'm not going to be a vehicle for victimhood here.

I like it when Howard Stern admits to having a small penis: "The truth will set you free". It's these silly hang-ups that we need to evolve beyond. Chaste language policing will not help the problem. More candor and understanding will. I have no obligation to keep my thoughts to myself, and no one else does either. And, please, stop trying to blame me for that NSFW thread that I never posted in.
I'm telling you that objectifying comments about female bodies leads DIRECTLY to self-harm, depression, alienation, and disordered thinking in me and many other people I know. You don't want to own that, fine. After all, why should you change your behavior to make a space healthier for someone else?

I think I'd hands down win the "thirst post" game even if we took the NSFW thread out of the running. And I've had enough "candor" about what men think about female bodies to last me three lifetimes. You referring to female body image issues as "silly hangups" is so hurtful and just wrong that I don't even know what to say about it.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:54 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:41 pm
I'm telling you that objectifying comments about female bodies leads DIRECTLY to self-harm, depression, alienation, and disordered thinking in me and many other people I know.
Great. My comment was not objectifying about female bodies, but other than that....


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:41 pm
You referring to female body image issues as "silly hangups" is so hurtful and just wrong that I don't even know what to say about it.
What I said, via example, was that physical attributes, regardless of gender, are by definition superficial (skin deep) and not particularly substantial ingredients to human relationships. Why I'd like to see us evolve beyond them is precisely so people will not signify them so much as to cause such hurt in the first place. You say we shouldn't talk about it. I say that talking about it is a first step to reprioritizing it.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:03 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 10:54 pm
Great. My comment was not objectifying about female bodies, but other than that....
Identifying physical attributes that you find attractive or not attractive is objectifying.
What I said, via example, was that physical attributes, regardless of gender, are by definition superficial (skin deep) and not particularly substantial ingredients to human relationships. Why I'd like to see us evolve beyond them is precisely so people will not signify them so much as to cause such hurt in the first place. You say we shouldn't talk about it. I say that talking about it is a first step to reprioritizing it.
I'm glad you think that we should all evolve. That's a really nice ideal. Meanwhile, I can't go grocery shopping or buy a damn yard waste permit at the local landfill without a stranger openly looking my body up and down.

Maybe one day we'll get to a place where you telling me what kind of breasts you like won't cause me hurt. But we are not there yet. And it does cause hurt. Your notion that me sitting here and listening to all the men on this site talk about physical attributes they find attractive is "the first step to reprioritizing it" is a sentiment that rings very hollow to me.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:07 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:33 am
Allow me to explain it to you.

Let's look at my underlined offensive language.


"there's plenty of less-endowed actresses that I find immensely attractive."

What am I saying here? Am I expressing a preference? Or am I saying that, in fact, I'm flexible when it comes to a variety of women's body types and that my attraction is not narrowly dictated by a rigid standard of beauty? Absent an expression of a preference, why is this sentence so offensive? If I'm capable of aesthetically appreciating a variety of body types, what then is my standard of attraction?

"I'm more of an eyes guy."

Besides a horrible pun, what am I saying here? Putting aside the cliche of soul windows, let's consider the possibility that eyes are actually the most personally expressive parts of the human body and the preeminent determinant of a person's acuity and emotional temper. Being the most personally expressive part of the body, it is therefore the least possible body part to objectify, because as objects they become eyeballs which are deprived of an animated personality. (For the record, I am not into eyeballs.) So what I'm saying here is identical to what I said above, which is that personal qualities take precedence in determining my attraction, and the entire notion of objectification is the elimination of the person from the meat puppet. I am here rejecting the non-personal reduction of a woman to a flesh toy.

I would apologize for being unclear, but it happens to be perfectly clear. Perhaps someone will claim that "personal qualities" is some kind of categorical box that I'm forcing women into. I wish I could be surprised at the moment.

Taking that into account....

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:03 pm
Identifying physical attributes that you find attractive or not attractive is objectifying.
Did I really identify a physical (in an objectifying sense, impersonal) attribute that I find attractive?


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:03 pm
all the men on this site talk about physical attributes...
"Talk" is not an either/or proposition. I don't think that the particular talk that I was referring to needs to be clarified.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:21 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:07 pm
Taking that into account....

Did I really identify a physical (in an objectifying sense, impersonal) attribute that I find attractive?
Yes.
"Talk" is not an either/or proposition. I don't think that the particular talk that I was referring to needs to be clarified.
Your idea of non-objectifying candor is hurtful. And if telling yourself that you're doing nothing wrong, that you're advancing dialogue around sex/gender, and that I'm just wallowing in victimhood with all of my baggage makes you feel better, Godspeed. But I am being frank and candid with you and your response is "Sorry you feel that way but that's on you." It's the disappointing but predictable response from people who would rather continue to cause harm than change a minor element of the way they express themselves.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:27 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:21 am
Yes.
And which impersonal female body part was that, I wonder? Because, as I mentioned, "eyes" are not impersonal (you know, like "eyes up here please"), and if you believe that they are, then you're the one who's objectifying them. Take from that response above and explain to me how it aids in the wholesale objectification and exploitation of the female. The problem isn't that I'm not listening, it's that I can see words, and I don't believe you can show this in the actual words that I've written.

This has become a pattern of either deliberately or impulsively misconstruing something I said that, in context (and everything has context), is innocent, and when I point out the innocent context, you respond by conflating me with some other completely different context - your gym pals, some nudie thread, catcallers, whatever. I'm starting to feel a little objectified myself.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:05 am

I intend this to be my last post on this subject.

In seeking to enlighten myself on the subject, I have been unable to find any evidence or examples of "eyes" being a body part which is prone to being objectified. Quite the opposite. I'll share some of these studies which show the measure of objectification - the male gaze - is directly proportional to eye contact, and that "the body", in this context, refers specifically to areas beyond the face. (The only facial feature that I've found being prone to sexual objectification has been the lips.)
Bernard, Leys, Kline wrote:Sexual objectification consists in considering an individual as a body, or body parts, available for satisfying others’ needs and desires (Bartky, 1990). In social psychology, this concept has been recently operationalized by highlighting either the sexualized body (i.e., sexual objectification condition) as opposed to the face (e.g., Loughnan et al., 2010). Indeed, the face symbolizes the humanness and personhood of the target, whereas the sexualized body does not (Archer, Iritani, Kimes, & Barrios, 1983)....

When completing a reaction time task requiring the categorization of words (i.e., animal vs. human words) and pictures (i.e., sexualized bodies vs. faces), people matched pictures to uniquely human characteristics less quickly than to animal characteristics, but only when the targets were sexualized women. These data suggest that people perceive women as closer to animals when their sexualized body is highlighted rather than their face....

Relying more on faces rather than bodies could actually increase the “personhood” of the product and, simultaneously, contribute to breaking the vicious circle of objectification.

This has been a gross overreaction, and I hope that after all of you calm down, cooler heads may prevail about this.

Image
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by LEAVES » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:11 am

Yes, Tak is being hysterical, right?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:25 am

Image
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25433
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Stu » Sun Nov 17, 2019 7:43 am

This reminds me of the time he bugged me for feeling that Sergeant Powell's backstory in Die Hard has aged poorly in a post-Black Lives Matter world because questionable police shootings supposedly weren't as common in the 80's...

Image
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:44 am

It's less and less surprising to see all of things I haven't said.

But, hey, let's blame the black guy on BLM grounds for shooting....I'm sorry, what was the race of the kid? We're just all making this shit up as we go along?
User avatar
Slentert
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 8:23 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Slentert » Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:55 pm

Duel (1971

This is by far my favorite movie of Spielberg, nothing else comes close.

I love that we never even catch a glimpse of the truck driver. I like the idea of that truck being a personification of pure evil, death himself on four wheels. Just an entity on itself, taking people down while cruising through the endless, lonely highway. A bit like the shark in Jaws. I don't know why it doesn't ever get mentioned as one of the great movie monsters.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 2087
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Thief » Wed Nov 20, 2019 1:04 pm

I think the middle act drags a bit, but it's still a pretty cool flick.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 2:27 am
This has become a pattern of either deliberately or impulsively misconstruing something I said that, in context (and everything has context), is innocent, and when I point out the innocent context, you respond by conflating me with some other completely different context - your gym pals, some nudie thread, catcallers, whatever. I'm starting to feel a little objectified myself.
It is a pretty consistent pattern in the way that men talk about bodies, when they think they are being gentlemanly, to mention a more commonly eroticized part of a woman's body (ie breasts, butt) and then follow it up with a comment about a less eroticized part (ie eyes, smile). So saying something to the effect of "There are less endowed women I find attractive, and anyway I'm more of an eyes guy" just feels like more of the same to me.

You keep trying to distance yourself from the NSFW thread, but you also posted a semi-nude image of a woman to "prove" that her breasts are smaller than another woman's (something I was not contesting). Did you even pause before posting an image of a woman in which her shirt is see-through? Were there no other images of Kidman showing her chest size that didn't also include her nipples (and her in underwear)?

I am telling you that sexualized images of women are pervasive in our society/media. But the part I'm also saying that you don't seem to want to hear is that there is a degree to which intent/context actually doesn't matter. Were you trying to be a creep by posting that image of Kidman? Maybe not. But the impact of how casually images like that are posted on this site (and . . . everywhere else) is part of the problem. Again: was that photo really necessary?

Part of what is overwhelming is just the inescapable awareness of the male gaze. The constant comment on female bodies that goes on around me, sometimes including comment on my body, sometimes including unwanted hands on my body. And often when it has ZERO relevance to what is happening. Again: grocery shopping, buying a yard waste permit, working at the video store. The awareness that many men feel a sort of ownership over the female bodies around them. A right to judge and categorize and comment. And none of those things would be a problem if they stayed internal, but they don't. And even when it might be relevant to discuss female bodies (and sometimes in art it is very relevant), it still exists within that toxic stew. It's like there's a beach strewn with garbage and you're going "What?! I just threw down one little scrap of paper! That guy over there just threw down a whole handful of trash!". It doesn't matter: you are still contributing to the garbage pile.

I took this week to step back and reflect on this conversation. I don't always assume that I'm right about things. And a few things happened that sort of shored up my feelings. The first was that I talked to my brother-in-law about it. I said "I told some people on this forum where I post that it makes me uncomfortable when female bodies are discussed and one of them said that keeping his thoughts to himself would be a vehicle for victimhood." And the look of disgust on his face was instant. In the middle of the week I had to comfort a crying female student because of comments that male students had made about her body. The third was that I went to the gym and ended up working out where it was mostly just me and this other guy. I think he has a little crush on me, but I'm not 100% sure. Because there aren't often many other people around, when one of us is on break we sort of end up staring at the other one doing hammer curls or whatever. But when I do things like bent-over rows or pike moves that make my shirt fall up he just . . . doesn't look at me. It is a minor adjustment to his behavior (a small censorship of action) that makes the gym a less hostile, more comfortable place for me.

You say that I'm overreacting, but I think that you're just not wanting to take into account the way that the words (and images) that you post are part of a deluge that I encounter every day in both "real life" and online. You want me to separate your actions from the actions of others, but the point I am making is that you are adding to what those other people are doing. You are the only reason I had to look at a sexualized image on that day (and not for what I would consider a good reason). You seem to want me to react as if we already live in some future utopia where no one has body hangups and we can just all talk openly about our sexual preferences without hurting any feelings. But you know that I don't live in that utopia.

So why is the idea of mildly adjusting your behavior (because you mostly don't comment on female bodies) such a big ask? And how is it a bigger ask then you wanting me to just . . . not have the feelings I have which are based on very real lived experiences?

The reason I get frustrated in these discussions is because I can't imagine knowing that I'm making someone uncomfortable and having my first reaction be "Well, you shouldn't have that emotion! I will not indulge your victimhood!" with seemingly zero acknowledgement of where the emotion is coming from and whether or not it is valid. It's really, really easy to find article/studies about the impact of objectification or self-objectification on mental health (and posting pictures of female bodies, regardless of intent, is basically a way to induce self-objectification in someone, whether they are male or female).

We can end this discussion here (or in your next post if you want to respond), but I would just ask that you consider your own actions as taking place in a larger context and try to think of what it's like from the other point of view. Not what you hope or wish the world to be, but what the world we live in is actually like and thus the impact of your words. Casually throwing around a word like "victimhood" (especially when you don't know someone's personal history) makes me think you haven't. Maybe in a month that I wasn't on the receiving end of unwanted male touch or words I'd be more receptive to your joke about you feeling objectified (because you don't like how you're being spoken to online), but I haven't have one of those months in a long, long time.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:22 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
It is a pretty consistent pattern in the way that men talk about bodies, when they think they are being gentlemanly, to mention a more commonly eroticized part of a woman's body (ie breasts, butt) and then follow it up with a comment about a less eroticized part (ie eyes, smile). So saying something to the effect of "There are less endowed women I find attractive, and anyway I'm more of an eyes guy" just feels like more of the same to me.
This is your misreading of my comment, and I can only refer back to my already succinct explanantion: "Am I expressing a preference? Or am I saying that, in fact, I'm flexible when it comes to a variety of women's body types and that my attraction is not narrowly dictated by a rigid standard of beauty?"; "that personal qualities take precedence in determining my attraction". This isn't difficult to discern in my past statements. I have not shown a preference for any body shape/type throughout this thread, and you seem determined to project onto me an attitude that my comments do not support.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
You keep trying to distance yourself from the NSFW thread, but you also posted a semi-nude image of a woman to "prove" that her breasts are smaller than another woman's (something I was not contesting). Did you even pause before posting an image of a woman in which her shirt is see-through?
Oh, you mean a still from the very film we're discussing? An image which you had in fact contested, by posting a picture of Kidman in a sweater. A very tasteful sweater, but not exactly something which could prove anything we were discussing.

I guess it needs to be repeated that you were the one who brought the issue of female body types into the discussion, not me. I'm perfectly content to discuss the merits of Eyes Wide Shut without taking this issue into account. And, bears repeating, I have consistently maintained that by contrasting these body types, I have shown no value judgment in terms of sexual attraction. I never called Kidman a "hideous troll", which you inexplicably inferred. All of this suggests a very ungenerous attempt to find kindling in my comments to support an objectification which is not being made.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
I'm also saying that you don't seem to want to hear is that there is a degree to which intent/context actually doesn't matter.
Well, it matters to me, sorry. I approach my interlocutors, online and real life, as individual human beings with their specific intent and context, and I do expect to be given the same respect and courtesy. I'm not uninterested in your experiences with creeps, but I wish you could avoid projecting these experiences onto me where they are not warranted.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
Part of what is overwhelming is just the inescapable awareness of the male gaze. The constant comment on female bodies that goes on around me, sometimes including comment on my body, sometimes including unwanted hands on my body. And often when it has ZERO relevance to what is happening. Again: grocery shopping, buying a yard waste permit, working at the video store. The awareness that many men feel a sort of ownership over the female bodies around them. A right to judge and categorize and comment. And none of those things would be a problem if they stayed internal, but they don't. And even when it might be relevant to discuss female bodies (and sometimes in art it is very relevant), it still exists within that toxic stew. It's like there's a beach strewn with garbage and you're going "What?! I just threw down one little scrap of paper! That guy over there just threw down a whole handful of trash!". It doesn't matter: you are still contributing to the garbage pile.
This does not describe me, isn't relevant to my actions or attitudes towards women, and only through the grossest generalization can be applied to anything I've done here. I'm sorry that you've suffered these experiences, but this doesn't change what I've written and doesn't validate your attempt to pin the responsibility for these experiences onto me.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
I said "I told some people on this forum where I post that it makes me uncomfortable when female bodies are discussed and one of them said that keeping his thoughts to himself would be a vehicle for victimhood."
Another example of something I did not say. I actually said "You are projecting a great deal of baggage onto a comment that cannot support that weight. I'm not going to be a vehicle for victimhood here." This doesn't refer to "keeping my thoughts to myself" regarding the female body. It refers to having my stated thoughts misconstrued (stripping the meaning of my intent/context as if it doesn't matter) for a purpose that's irrelevant to those stated thoughts. It's funny how people twist things in these weird games of telephone, but to put it another way, I won't allow myself to be indicted based on how you've confused my statements.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
You want me to separate your actions from the actions of others
Yes, I want you to consider me as a separate, individual human being. I would like for you to consider that presuming my complicity in matters which are not supported in my comments is unfair and....presumptuous.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
So why is the idea of mildly adjusting your behavior (because you mostly don't comment on female bodies) such a big ask? And how is it a bigger ask then you wanting me to just . . . not have the feelings I have which are based on very real lived experiences?
I think that a blanket prohibition on the mere utterance of the details of the female body is an unrealistic expectation, but I'll be happy to refrain from directly broaching the subject with you in the future.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
The reason I get frustrated in these discussions is because I can't imagine knowing that I'm making someone uncomfortable and having my first reaction be "Well, you shouldn't have that emotion! I will not indulge your victimhood!" with seemingly zero acknowledgement of where the emotion is coming from and whether or not it is valid.
Yeah, and I get frustrated when people put these strange words in my mouth. I don't recall ever telling you that you shouldn't have any particular emotion or feeling (and I do respect the experiential background you've cited). What I've been saying in the black and white of the text is that your reaction is not validated by what I've written. It is, at best, a misunderstanding or impulsive inference, or at worse a deliberate distortion.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 1:36 am
I would just ask that you consider your own actions as taking place in a larger context and try to think of what it's like from the other point of view. Not what you hope or wish the world to be, but what the world we live in is actually like and thus the impact of your words.
This is probably good advice all around. It would be a shame to shortchange another person's POV through generalizations and subjective assumptions. As I stated earlier, it's clear that we live in very different worlds in a lot of ways, but I wish you would consider the words that I've said in the context that they've been explicated. That would be the considerate thing to do.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am

This is a lot of text. I'm just going to spoiler post it for the 99% of you who are like "Please let this conversation be over already".
Jinnistan wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:22 am
Oh, you mean a still from the very film we're discussing? An image which you had in fact contested, by posting a picture of Kidman in a sweater. A very tasteful sweater, but not exactly something which could prove anything we were discussing.
I posted two images to convey that I consider Kidman to be a similar type of beauty as the other women featured in the film. Because (as I stated), I don't consider cup size to be something that puts Kidman in a different category. So why was a semi-nude image of Kidman necessary there?
I guess it needs to be repeated that you were the one who brought the issue of female body types into the discussion, not me. I'm perfectly content to discuss the merits of Eyes Wide Shut without taking this issue into account. And, bears repeating, I have consistently maintained that by contrasting these body types, I have shown no value judgment in terms of sexual attraction. I never called Kidman a "hideous troll", which you inexplicably inferred. All of this suggests a very ungenerous attempt to find kindling in my comments to support an objectification which is not being made.
My joke about Kidman being "hideous" was in reference to what I just wrote above: you were distinguishing Kidman as being of a different "type" than the other women in the film. I thought it was funny to say that the women in the orgy represent sexual fantasy. As if Kidman somehow . . . . doesn't?

I said that there was a lack of diversity in terms of female representation in the film. That almost all of the women in the film (whether presented as fantasy objects or not) were thin, pretty, and white. For you to distinguish thin, pretty, white women by saying that one of them has a leaner build and smaller breasts struck me as funny. I still can't wrap my head around thinking that there's any real kind of female diversity in the film.
I'm not uninterested in your experiences with creeps, but I wish you could avoid projecting these experiences onto me where they are not warranted.
I'm not projecting. I'm regarding your comments in the context of all the other comments I'm exposed to on a weekly basis. I'm telling you that even objective, well-intentioned statements about female bodies can be upsetting. I'm still wondering why I needed to see a photo of Kidman in a see-through shirt. I'm wondering why you say that people should be open and unashamed about body hang ups, but in the same thread make jokes about the size of Tom Cruise's penis.
your attempt to pin the responsibility for these experiences onto me.
I'm not blaming you for anything. You keep saying this, but it's not what I am saying. At all. What I *am* doing is lumping you in with all the other people who talk about or post images of female bodies, and you don't like that implied company. But googlng "Nicole Kidman Eyes Wide Shut" easily pulls up several images that clearly show her build (in more definition than a sweater) without showing her breasts or showing her in underwear. So, again, I'm not blaming you for the NSFW thread or for the creeps who look me up and down at the grocery store. But you unnecessarily posted a sexual, semi-nude image of a woman that was not necessary to the conversation, so . . .
I won't allow myself to be indicted based on how you've confused my statements.
Indicted is pretty strong language. I am asking that people on this site be more thoughtful about how they write about (and show) female bodies, and to consider that whatever their intent, those words and images might be harmful.
Yes, I want you to consider me as a separate, individual human being. I would like for you to consider the presuming of my complicity in matters which are not supported in my comments as unfair and....presumptuous.
Posting an unnecessary semi-nude image of a woman does make you complicit in the socially accepted display of female bodies. This site is overwhelmingly male. And so there is a certain degree of bro culture. It is inescapable. While my field is female dominated, my team is me and two men. And our lunch shift overlaps with two other men. I am used to just being quiet and tolerating a certain amount of what comes with that. Anytime you are in a group that is dominated by a single demographic, it's what happens. While it's true that there are many men on this site who rarely/never post jiggle content, there are very, very few who speak up about it. I think that most posters on this site are, to a degree, complicit. I don't think you're bad dudes. I just get frustrated sometimes because I think that, at worst, for male posters the comments and images are just background noise. And the lack of questioning that content combined with the pearl-clutching that happens when I take issue with it is annoying.

This is probably good advice all around. It would be a shame to shortchange another person's POV through generalizations and subjective assumptions. As I stated earlier, it's clear that we live in very diffent worlds in a lot of ways, but I wish you would consider the words that I've said in the context that they've been explicated. That would be the considerate thing to do.
I don't try to deliberately misunderstand or misrepresent people. I try to be very straightforward in my communication and thoughts. I don't think that I've been inconsiderate in anything I've said. To go back full circle to the film, you wanted me to consider the film on it's terms (ie the film's supposed intent), while I was considering it in a broader cultural context and having some mixed feelings about how it chose to portray/subvert/explore the idea of sexuality/objectification. My eye is always on broader context and that applies to posts on this site as well as films.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 3037
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Nov 22, 2019 5:54 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
I posted two images to convey that I consider Kidman to be a similar type of beauty as the other women featured in the film. Because (as I stated), I don't consider cup size to be something that puts Kidman in a different category. So why was a semi-nude image of Kidman necessary there?
Correction: you were not citing "beauty types", but explicitly "body types". If those phrases confuse you, then I can begin to understand the misinterpretation. In terms of body types, Kidman (as well as Marie Richardson and Leelee Sobieski) has a different body type than the women at the orgy. I made no distinction of beauty in this comment. I chose an image from the film that reflects more accurately Kidman's true body frame than a picture with a sweater. I tend to assume that people who post here are adults, privy to 'R' rated content, and not likely to be offended by an image that they've already seen in a film before (where, incidentally, it was neither offensive or controversial).


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
I thought it was funny to say that the women in the orgy represent sexual fantasy. As if Kidman somehow . . . . doesn't?
The women in the orgy represent sexual homogeneity and anonymity, the generic "Barbie doll". Yes, Kidman does not.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
I'm wondering why you say that people should be open and unashamed about body hang ups, but in the same thread make jokes about the size of Tom Cruise's penis.
Because Tom Cruise is going to be OK.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
What I *am* doing is lumping you in with all the other people who talk about or post images of female bodies, and you don't like that implied company.
Aside from the inaccuracy of your sentiment here, why should I have a problem with it?


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
But you unnecessarily posted a sexual, semi-nude image of a woman that was not necessary to the conversation, so . . .
So we've determined that nudity is an issue for you. I'll refrain from disscussing the issue with you in the future. I pointed out earlier that I do not find nudity, ipso facto (ala, an innocent picture of a woman in underwear from a completely sexless and unerotic scene), to be objectifying, demeaning or exploitative.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
This site is overwhelmingly male.
Speaking of our different worlds, I remember you expressing incredulity at my claim that most of the women in my life, familial and social, enjoy sexually explicit humor (like Tom Cruise dick jokes, for example). I don't doubt that you may find this a foreign, unfathomable phenomenon. I don't, however, see the problem here as a purely gendered difference of perspective.


Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 4:23 am
I don't try to deliberately misunderstand or misrepresent people.
I asked a straightforward question: "Did I really identify a physical (in an objectifying sense, impersonal) attribute that I find attractive?" You said "yes", I had. The fact is that I hadn't. I'm confident that you cannot identify where I had. I'm not sure where this confusion is coming from, but give me the benefit of acknowledging that there has been some confusion here.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:38 pm

Gosh, will someone telling me that I'm confused over and over again make me rethink my position? Or will it just come off as lazy gaslighting?
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by LEAVES » Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:56 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:38 pm
Gosh, will someone telling me that I'm confused over and over again make me rethink my position? Or will it just come off as lazy gaslighting?
I think the more pressing questions are, “Am I interacting with a person acting in good-faith, and if not, should I continue?”
User avatar
topherH
Posts: 694
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 4:05 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by topherH » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:15 am

More black cops should shoot foreign terrorists after having an epiphany. I don't know where to go with this but, I said it.
State of Siege |Gavras, 1972| +
Deadpool |Miller, 2016| +
Z |Gavras, 1969| -
The Confession |Gavras, 1970| +
Missing |Gavras, 1982| +
The Revenant |Inarritu, 2015| +
The Hateful Eight |Tarantino, 2015| +

+ Recommended
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2871
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by Takoma1 » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:44 am

LEAVES wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 12:56 am
I think the more pressing questions are, “Am I interacting with a person acting in good-faith, and if not, should I continue?”
Fair enough. But I guess that unless someone is obviously trolling (which I don't think is happening here) I assume there's good faith.

Unrelated: are you watching Undone on Prime? If so, please meet me in the television thread.
User avatar
LEAVES
Posts: 15657
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 10:31 pm
Location: LEAVES come from TREES

Re: A noob's journey through cinema

Post by LEAVES » Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:53 am

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:44 am
Fair enough. But I guess that unless someone is obviously trolling (which I don't think is happening here) I assume there's good faith.

Unrelated: are you watching Undone on Prime? If so, please meet me in the television thread.
I’ve been paying attention to the impeachment hearings, so I have lost the ability to assume that people are acting in good faith.

I haven’t watched Undone yet... but I do have Prime so I’ll check it out. I’m really excited for Bunheads Season 4, though, even though there have been some serious continuity issues given that there are no more ballerinas. It’s quite confusing.
Post Reply