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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @faceyouhate
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
Yet what Valente said, which is where all this came from, was a critique of how Scorsese made his film. So you've just shifted the argument away from that. And what you're saying is not what she said.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faceyouhate @carolynmichelle
And her critique was that he'd made it wrong because it wasn't simplistic enough. It was also an inaccurate description of GOODFELLAS. No one who lives to the end gets out of that movie happy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faceyouhate @carolynmichelle
And whether you believe it or not where this is all heading is, worst case scenario, simplistic art. As for the rest of what you said look at JOKER (I film I don't like at all). How many critics said it would cause violence? So far two guys were bounced from a theater for smoking
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @faceyouhate
So your answer is--just don't voice those critiques? I mean, the "violence" art may contribute to isn't like that. Films that work to maintain the patriarchal status quo are all drops in an ideological ocean. It doesn't mean they're harmless. This shit is all very complicated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @carolynmichelle
No, my answer is "Understand the movie you're critiquing before you critique it." This has all blown up from a terrible, stupid misreading of a film that's not hard to read. I can't fathom why it's being defended by anyone.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I don't want us to go in circles, and I have sincerely appreciated our conversation. But while I agree that Goodfellas is "not hard to read," I also think it's exactly the kind of film that is deeply misread by vast swaths of its audience, and I think we need to reckon with that.
-
-
Replying to @carolynmichelle
But how can you even know what damage, if any, it has caused? This is hypothetical.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @carolynmichelle
But anyway, yes, I agree. It was a good conversation, we both had our say, and we didn't try to kill each other.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.