Female dialogue in 2016’s biggest movies, visualized

Introduce yourself to the community or chat with other users about whatever is on your mind
djross
Posts: 1212
5318 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Female dialogue in 2016’s biggest movies, visualized

Post by djross »

x
Last edited by djross on Thu Jul 20, 2023 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

dardan
Posts: 313
1636 Ratings
Your TCI: na
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 9:08 pm

Re: Female dialogue in 2016’s biggest movies, visualized

Post by dardan »

I wrote the first half late at night, got tired, saved a draft, got lazy and then waited too long, but I didn't want to lose the draft either. So here it is anyway.

djross wrote:In relation to the subject of this discussion, what I don't accept is the implication that the character of the depictions contained in cultural artefacts is reflected in any simple way in social behaviour, and hence that particular choices about what is depicted in mass industrial products like Star Wars, whether in terms of "diversity" or in terms of who is or is not portrayed as "strong" or heroic, will subsequently be reflected in positive changes in social life.

Considering the ungraspability of 'true' reality and the structures defining it to the imagination of man, the second best thing is continuously investigating and consuming information to imagine how said reality might be and how this reality might be applicable to the unknown self as it relates to the other. It's not too much of a jump, then, to assume that all perceived dynamics operative in reality either construct new modes of possible behaviour within a certain context while reconfiguring the old or reinforce whatever modes/possible behaviours/personas were already established. This would seem to me to be the foundational analysis of a major element of the empirically validated theory of role models, a framework used in both sociology, psychology and their derivates such as criminology, and this should itself be mutually exclusive with the idea that the character of the depictions contained in cultural artefacts would not be reflected in any simple[?] way in social behaviour.

paulofilmo, skip to here if the above doesn't make any sense
To elucidate the above, an example would be Farval Falkenberg, a movie in which some guy decides to commit suicide in a highly romanticized fashion, thereby perpetuating the ignorance and similarly empty, romanticized stereotypes it likely is based on. Can't we fault Falkenberg for spreading this false representation of a reality that in turn most likely reinforces whatever modes or possible behaviours viewers already would have had prior to watching? Now, if this extends to social behaviours relating to in this case depression, then why doesn't it to how women subtly reallign their norms of what are and what are not adequate behaviour and ambitions to have?

djross wrote:Among those complications is the question of the effects of the rise of what Adorno and Horkheimer called the culture industry, ...the question they raised then indubitably remains relevant now: does the creation of an industry of cultural goods tend to give rise to a "new kind of barbarism"?


Insofar as I am aware with the work of Adorno and Horkheimer, which, admittedly, is not very far, it seems that their analysis mostly rejects the premise of the cultural industry possibly leading to anything good, and instead leads to a certain commodification of the human condition. But this doesn't mean that the constituent parts of the industry can't be better than any other one part. There's varying degrees of shittiness, and at the moment where something becomes less shitty than it was, it should be regarded as a change for the better. To the extent of it being called of a small 'positive' wave that itself is part of a much more massive 'bad' wave, it could similarly be said that we shouldn't care about life because the sun will destroy the planet in x amount of time anyways.

Another claim I interpret your argument as possibly suggesting would be that all these guys in the 70's turning into wannabe Luke Skywalkers isn't empowering at all, but instead is predicated upon their adoptation of a fake, superficial, collective identity that estranges them in a way similar to what Antonioni depicted in La Notte. (For reference, my mini-review: "Life would be tolerable if not for its pleasures." Unsurpisingly, The Night is a dark film about empty emotions had by people leading empty lives due to entanglement in empty social conventions, disconnection and alienation, as signified by the death of Marxist Tommaso and stemming from increasingly materialistic (and technological) anthropogenic constructions within human temporality beyond human adaptability, supplanting the natural and putting man into existential purgatory.) On the other hand, a buttload of women still watch this (see my first post), so they wouldn't be served under the status quo either. Lastly, the actual positions of women in the film doesn't address all the smaller social cues and dynamics that almost certainly also have impact and almost certainly favour men given that 83% of the dialogue being spoken by them has a negative impact in itself.

Post Reply