The problem, see, is that people are fundamentally misunderstanding these movies. For example, you say that at the end of SCARFACE, Tony Montana kills all his enemies and goes "on to basically become the Badass King of All Crime." Here's how SCARFACE actually ends.pic.twitter.com/BJdlShWnj5
-
-
Replying to @faceyouhate
Oh, I agree. I just think it's a reality that people will misunderstand these films, will be far more moved by images of excitement and glorification during a film than any consequences characters may ultimately face as a result of their actions.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle @faceyouhate
And so *if* a film wants to function as a critique in terms of its cultural impact (which it's under no moral obligation to do), then the filmmakers need to understand and account for this about humans and how we collectively respond to images and narratives.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @faceyouhate
By not inadvertently glorifying the behaviors they actively intend to critique. But that's hypothetical. Scorsese makes movies because he wants to tell certain kinds stories, not because he wants to actively critique or actively glorify certain kinds of masculinity.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
I think that's an extreme reduction of what Scorsese does. Do you really not see GOODFELLAS as a critique of those characters?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faceyouhate
I absolutely do. As an individual. Do I think it worked that way in terms of its cultural impact, that by and large patriarchal men left the film feeling a little uncomfortable, a little disrupted, a little challenged in their worldview? No. I sure don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
This is, of course, impossible to know, even with the hazy "by and large" qualifier. But either way you think Scorsese should "account" for this "by not inadvertently glorifying the behaviors they actively intend to critique." Which is asking him to be a worse artist.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @faceyouhate
I'm not advocating for that at all, though I think great art that's critical of patriarchal men and that doesn't glorify their behavior is absolutely possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
I'm sorry, but you said that filmmakers "need to account" for the way people respond to their images, etc., by which you meant, you said, they should not "inadvertently glorify" the behavior. So I'll point you to the Hays Code.pic.twitter.com/5H2WinHzCt
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
That was under the hypothetical situation of them wanting to make films that would actually function as critiques (of patriarchy, toxic masculinity, w/e) in terms of their larger cultural impact. It's not a moral imperative or anything like that.
-
-
Replying to @carolynmichelle
Even then I disagree, hypothetically or otherwise. That's saying that in order to make such a film, they need to hold our hands & treat us like children and make worse films. It's the difference between asking them to adhere to the Hays Code and demanding it. I don't like either.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @faceyouhate
I definitely don't want simplistic, hand-holding art. I just want our conversations about complex art to acknowledge that there are millions of men out there so in love with violence and domination that their views of such depictions in cinema are deeply clouded by that love.
1 reply 3 retweets 9 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.