If you are using ACO as an example than you are confusing films that are sexist, and films that have a character who is sexist. And while we are on the matter I think Alex goes a bit beyond just being sexist.
There is a big difference between The Birth of a Nation glorifying the KKK, and Salo showing awful people as awful people.
Anything that offends a Republican is fine by me.
Then what specific films do you consider as sexist/misogynistic?
>>Do you rate a film lower if it’s just politically incorrect? Do you rate a film lower if it’s blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, ethnocentric or just plain bigoted? Of course I’m not talking about films that deal with these issues<<
Generally, yes. I can’t enjoy a movie that offends me, after all. But I’d note that “just plain bigoted” and “politically incorrect” are really two very different things.
>>If it’s an old movie, do you consider the standards back then, or do you just rate it for what it is? I mean, surely a blackface act in a film will just put almost anybody off. In Swing Time, not so much I guess since even though Astaire’s face is painted black, he isn’t trying to act like a stereotypical black person. The worst blackface act I can remember is in the film Show Boat, the one directed by James Whale.<<
One does have to take into account the times a film was made, of course. And it is interesting that SHOW BOAT has both Irene Dunne’s offensive blackface routine and possible one of the most dignified portrayals of a black man (in Paul Robeson) of the time in the same film. (Robeson, btw had nothing but praise for Whale while Dunne loathed him … bears thinking about, doesn’t it?)
My idea of a great time at the movies is a film that so horrifies Republicans that they run screaming out of the theater and hurl themselves into oncoming traffic.
Nothing offends me in a movie if it is true to the setting of the film, or if the characters are believable. Now, if you just had Joe Schmoe ranting the entire film, with no connection to the plot I suppose it might offend me……but moreover the film would suck.
“My idea of a great time at the movies is a film that so horrifies Republicans that they run screaming out of the theater and hurl themselves into oncoming traffic.”
Seconded. But in all seriousness these social issues only get in the way of film criticism.
No, I rate them higher. Films that are politically incorrect are, by default, more intelligent and ballsy, going against a ridiculous norm set by the dumbed-down masses.
I’m on board with Ehrenstein and Spence.
As one whose politics are to the left of liberal, let’s just say pious liberal nonsense offends me. Agitprop offends. Bear down on your critique. Be unsparing and bold. But spare me the speechifying. Challenge me. Don’t appeal to me with sentiment.
Of course a film that i think is bigoted, reactionary and offends my political thiinking is gonna get a lower rating from me, even if it’s well made and acted. I really don’t like On the Waterfront, and even less for Kazan’s betrayal and attempt at self-justification.
Astaire’s solo in Swing Time is intended as a genuine respectful tribute to Bill Bojangles Robinson; Astaire does not have the caricatured awful b+w minstrels look.
Paul Robeson was a man i really admire, from what i know of him he seemed to care greatly about social injustice throughout the world and was made to pay for it by the racist rightwing. And he was a great friend of Wales and miners, eg in The Proud Valley.
In the UK it is politically incorrect to criticise the Queen and armed forces, who are portrayed day after day in the media as brave heroes; no politician would dare criticise them.
Jolson’s blackface is caricature. But not Eddie Cantor’s.
No, that would be narrow-minded.
“No, I rate them higher. Films that are politically incorrect are, by default, more intelligent and ballsy, going against a ridiculous norm set by the dumbed-down masses.” – Eli
And I have to call you out on this … what films would qualify are being intelligent according to those standards? Hostel? Inglorious Basterds? Salo? Gummo? Last Temptation of Christ? All these films are (or were at the time of their release) considered politically incorrect by someone, if not the majority, so does that automatically make them better films than say, Il Rosso Desert or Stalker?
EDIT: And this is to the original poster; how do you determine a film that is exploring these issues and one that is exploiting them? Based on your first post, you’re saying that Clockwork Orange is exploitation?
Or pointy-headed. Whichever comes first.
Films from the past you have to pretty much just take in and look back at the time period and how everything was perceived. But now we have ‘somewhat’ advanced in our thinking and to be outright racist and homophobic is wrong…even though I do find homophobia is still alive and well in films.
“And I just stopped watching A Clockwork Orange because the first scenes were just too much, too misogynistic for me. I just raised my eyebrows and wanted to throw something at the screen during the first scene with all of them in a room full of female mannequins used as chairs, as just furniture, objects to design the room. THAT’S JUST PLAIN MISOGYNY AND THERE’S NO NEED ANALYZING IT ANY OTHER WAY ELSE. And the worst part about A Clockwork Orange is that the hero is characterized as someone to sympathize with and that it is regarded by a lot of people as a great and essential film, even people who have questionable taste in film.”
That doesn’t mean the film is misogynistic – it means the youth culture portrayed in the film is misogynistic.
As for the sympathetic portrayal of Alex: why should a film have to make you sympathise with the good guys all the time? Even killers, rapists and psychopaths still have feelings – if they didn’t they likely wouldn’t have been driven to such extremes – so it is an interesting, valid and provocative angle to make you sympathise with them as long you remain aware that what they did was wrong.
@SCORPIORISING: I tend to agree with Drew and William Burchett above regarding your original post, which said:
“And I just stopped watching A Clockwork Orange because the first scenes were just too much, too misogynistic for me. I just raised my eyebrows and wanted to throw something at the screen during the first scene with all of them in a room full of female mannequins used as chairs, as just furniture, objects to design the room. THAT’S JUST PLAIN MISOGYNY AND THERE’S NO NEED ANALYZING IT ANY OTHER WAY ELSE.”
Drew “drew” a distinction between a sexist film and a sexist character or society being depicted. I agree, although it’s often the basis of a lot of debate. Years ago, I had a student, for instance, who made an EXCELLENT short film in which two escaped convicts trek through the woods around the prison chained to each other. (I know: it sounds like THE DEFIANT ONES, but this time one con is a big, burly, homophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and racist skinhead murderer and the other guy is a milquetoast accountant who’s actually INNOCENT of embezzlement (this was BEFORE the movie THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION). At any rate, because the villain spews venom about every group (except skinheads), people criticized THE MOVIE as being “politically incorrect.” Ultimately, the big guy’s hatred caused his downfall: he killed the accountant when he found out he was Jewish and remained chained to the guy, unable to continue his flight. Sometimes it’s politically CORRECT to show the face of evil.
The film went on to win several awards, mainly for its good performances, cinematography, and editing, and the basic drama, but some professors and even some students complained about the “hate speech” in the student’s film. In fact, they wanted it banned from the regular campus screening! I think they were wrong to interpret it so narrowly. This hater was a BAD example, as is Alex DeLarge in CLOCKWORK. Yes, Kubrick tries to show you his humanity (sort of) once the system starts abusing him, but that’s what makes the film complex.
When the film came out, a NEW YORK TIMES critic wrote an article called, “Why Liberals Should HATE A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. It was based on the idea that Alex was a role model for youth and that (”monkey see, monkey do") youths would go on rampages after watching the movie or would develop anti-social attitudes about women, old people, religion, the state, etc. I was scheduled to have my reply printed when I got a call from the TIMES. They said that they had to cancel my article because “MR. KUBRICK has decided to respond.”
In short, there ARE sometimes good reasons to “analyze things any other way.” One of those reasons is that you can end up simplifying images and issues that have many gradations and shades. In fact, I don’t know you, but I’d argue that the fact that you were revolted by Alex’s behavior at the beginning, and the set of the “milk bar” he frequented with his droogs shows that the film is NOT sexist. In fact, you were appalled by the denigration of women and that’s the opposite of sexism. To give one of my hypothetical analogies (and, yes, I know they’re not the same thing) but should we NOT show newsreel images of black people being hosed by Bull Connor in the 1960s because it’s racist; should we NOT show NIGHT AND FOG because the Nazis killed Jews; should we NOT see instances of homophobia, etc. etc. on screen because some nut case might have his/her beliefs confirmed? Or, rather, shouldn’t we look at these horrific images and statements AND “throw something at the screen” (although that’s not the proper target)?
I agree with dave from 2 hours ago.
I agree with Eli Goodspeed, i rate them higher.
scorpiorising
No, and I don’t mean when a film offends your intelligence. Do you rate a film lower if it’s just politically incorrect? Do you rate a film lower if it’s blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic, ethnocentric or just plain bigoted? Of course I’m not talking about films that deal with these issues (although you do have to rate the film Giant lower because that movie’s just plain awful).
If it’s an old movie, do you consider the standards back then, or do you just rate it for what it is? I mean, surely a blackface act in a film will just put almost anybody off. In Swing Time, not so much I guess since even though Astaire’s face is painted black, he isn’t trying to act like a stereotypical black person. The worst blackface act I can remember is in the film Show Boat, the one directed by James Whale.
I haven’t seen Salo yet, and I’m not even sure if I’m mentally prepared yet to watch that film but I think most people have rated Salo one or two stars because they think the film’s just offensive, both misandric and misogynistic. And I just stopped watching A Clockwork Orange because the first scenes were just too much, too misogynistic for me. I just raised my eyebrows and wanted to throw something at the screen during the first scene with all of them in a room full of female mannequins used as chairs, as just furniture, objects to design the room. THAT’S JUST PLAIN MISOGYNY AND THERE’S NO NEED ANALYZING IT ANY OTHER WAY ELSE. And the worst part about A Clockwork Orange is that the hero is characterized as someone to sympathize with and that it is regarded by a lot of people as a great and essential film, even people who have questionable taste in film.