|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 16, 2019 3:30:17 GMT
All art was doing, was representing and projecting the societal construct of women. Men have always been seen as the guardian of women and children for the most part and that is just human or gender nature. Besides, a female gets compensations for acting girly and scared because of their feminine nature, it comes with the package. It is not masculine for a male to act the same way and males were left open for easier ridicule by other males and by females also, who had an expectation as to how their males should act. Women are too blame as well for this image portrayed.
There's a Nature element to it as well. Art should reflect Nature. If it does not, and isn't honest about it, then I think it enters the category of propaganda. A single work against the norm may shock or satisfy and not rattle common sense, but the more it goes off into message land the more absurd it will become-especially after the novelty wears off. It's plausible for Ripley to be the last survivor in ALIEN. Less plausible that she would be the last survivor of a group of Marines in ALIENS.
This is the case with SCREAM where the alleged realism and female empowerment is thwarted by something as ridiculous (and impossible) as Neve Campbell dragging her father bound and tied into a hallway closet and for no logical reason. The logical practical thing for her would have been to cut the ropes with a kitchen knife a few feet away and have him aid her in fighting the two killers. At the very least, if they were going to keep him out of it, have him knocked unconscious. They put him in the closet so they could get another jump scare and also to drive home the point that 5'4 100 pound Sydney could defeat 2 males without the aid of her 6 foot something, 200 pound father.
Propaganda insert at its worst.
Films are never going to fully represent reality\realism, watch a doco for that, but even those can be slanted, but you have made some good points about Ripely in Aliens. Since Weaver was the star though, was believable within the context of the sci\fi horror fantasy setting, she proved she was a strong, resourceful and courageous character because of who Ripley was, not because Ripley was woman. She wasn't anymore strong or resourceful than the marines that accompanied her. Even Vasquez was just a tough marine and not tough because she was female. One would want someone like her on your side.
I haven't seen Scream in a while, but in terms of its parody\satire slant on slashers, then the characters that do stupid s<>t, is really in context with the films jokey theme.
It is very obvious that many of these "woke women" films are propaganda and therefore the naturalness you are talking about is being eschewed for a phony take on what nature really represents. Males get away with the tough guy and hero image, due to males being generally the physically stronger gender and also the expendable gender throughout history. Any exaggeration of their abilities in films I guess is just masculine dynamic film privilege. People, even females, accept this due to the male nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by poes on Dec 16, 2019 19:15:43 GMT
The movie keeps bombing , yet they still made a another one. Weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Dec 17, 2019 5:26:21 GMT
The 1974 was classic horror. Creepy and scary and atmospheric, with the Best Movie Christmas Tree ever. And a sorority house big enough 15 corpses. It's got Andrea Martin and Margot Kidder and that lady who plays Mrs. Mac is to die laughing. "Claude, Goddamnit! You little prick! I'm going to have you fixed, Claude!"And the most disturbed prank phone caller I have ever heard. The sick caller just has got to have some kind of multiple personality disorder. John Saxon shows up and it is a welcome sight.I also find some of the boys, like Nash as well as the cute guy whose been taking Claire out. The only two liabilities this movie are Keri Dullea, who is humorless and selfish and ends up bullying the mildly okay Jess. There wasn't high on gore score, the movie makes up in suspense and tension and superlative atmosphere. But now we've got the 2006 versions, 2016 and now 2019, and I don't be going to any of them. I was bored last time I watched it, which was earlier on in the year. I find it starts out better than it finishes. I wasn't scared or felt very invested in the characters, despite an interesting cast. I felt detached and cold to the film.
I thought the Canadians made better slashers into the early 80's, with Happy Birthday To Me, Visiting Hours and even American Gothic.
I liked the 2006 reboot. It was ott and cheesy, but I found it a lot of fun and the last 15mins did have me on edge.
Oh, it's a black day, indeed, Toasted Cheese, with not nearly enough blood or gory kills to your liking. For me, well, it's a brightly lit Christmas tree kind of day, and shot, apparently, with some of Lucille Ball's old gauze. This is some kind of divine atmosphere. Margo's death by glass menagerie is the most striking. I will agree that Keir Dullea is dullsville. And that he really needs to get out of the way of the Christmas Tree, immediately. I can't remember if I saw "American Gothic". But I loved all the other characters in the movie! Especially Andrea and Margot and Mrs. Mac and that lovely, grand old house! (And Bob Clark re-used some of the male cuties for his funny movie "Porky's") But, with this movie, I was entertained from beginning to end!
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 17, 2019 5:45:51 GMT
I was bored last time I watched it, which was earlier on in the year. I find it starts out better than it finishes. I wasn't scared or felt very invested in the characters, despite an interesting cast. I felt detached and cold to the film.
I thought the Canadians made better slashers into the early 80's, with Happy Birthday To Me, Visiting Hours and even American Gothic.
I liked the 2006 reboot. It was ott and cheesy, but I found it a lot of fun and the last 15mins did have me on edge.
Oh, it's a black day, indeed, Toasted Cheese, with not nearly enough blood or gory kills to your liking. For me, well, it's a brightly lit Christmas tree kind of day, and shot, apparently, with some of Lucille Ball's old gauze. This is some kind of divine atmosphere. I will agree that Keir Dullea is dullsville. And that he really needs to get out of the way of the Christmas Tree, immediately. I can't remember if I saw "American Gothic". But I loved all the other characters in the movie! Especially Andrea and Margot and Mrs. Mac and that lovely, grand old house! (And Bob Clark re-used some of the male cuties for his funny movie "Porky's") But, with this movie, I was entertained from beginning to end! It is a ghoulish thing for me with slashers. Blood may not be necessary, but I like to have some shock value thrown in to the mix if balanced out well. I used to get very frustrated when I went to a slasher and the kills were off screen. I guess part of it is the technical aspect of how it was achieved. Perhaps I need to see it again and the characters are the most important. I kept getting interrupted last time I watched BC and didn't get to see it in a whole sitting. Plus I was watching it in the daytime.
As much as I think Halloween is the superior slasher, I prefer its sequel because there are more bloody kills in it.
I did start watching FT13th last month, I got on dvd for a buck. I was quite impressed with the quality but didn't get to finish it. Need to start again and I like the woody atmosphere. The kills in that for me are too fake rubbery and latexey. Halloween 2's violence was sharp and pointed and metallic like and it makes me squirm more. I feel it! Even Happy Birthday To Me is quite tame, shows more of the after effects but it was the inventiveness and atmosphere that I really love here.
|
|
|
|
Post by truecristian on Dec 18, 2019 18:34:25 GMT
That film y breaks almost every rule there is in filmmaking. The first half drags, the dialogue is unnatural, the static camera creates no visual interest, there are barely any emotional punches, characters are monotonous, and none of the protagonists, if there even are, have dimensionality, arcs or epiphanies. Nonetheless, it's transcendental and sublime, awe-inspiring and thought-provoking, visually revolutionary, technically impeccable, monumentally imaginative, substantially rich, and way ahead of its time, thriving with unparalleled originality and ambition.This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Dec 18, 2019 23:55:38 GMT
That film y breaks almost every rule there is in filmmaking. The first half drags, the dialogue is unnatural, the static camera creates no visual interest, there are barely any emotional punches, characters are monotonous, and none of the protagonists, if there even are, have dimensionality, arcs or epiphanies. Nonetheless, it's transcendental and sublime, awe-inspiring and thought-provoking, visually revolutionary, technically impeccable, monumentally imaginative, substantially rich, and way ahead of its time, thriving with unparalleled originality and ambition.This movie is certainly one of the greatest films ever made. It is a story told in a steady pace, told mostly not by words but by cinematic means of expression. Perfect blend of spectacular special effects and classical music bring to life creations of human imagination in both realistic and poetical way. The story itself is quite simple at a first glance. I am not sure what post of mine you are referring to, as you have deleted it. When I know, I will get back to you.
|
|
