That's the biggest victory of this movie. The message that cooperation, solidarity, compassion and egalitarianism will win over authoritarianism, classism and toxic masculinity, and that the first set of values isn't exclusively feminine and icky.
yet hierarchies seam to form at every turn of human endeavor. Also the motivation that status bring is a powerful one, a driving force for innovation and cooperation, if we truly became socially egalitarian this would diminish.
Hindrance How exactly would your philosophy play out? Please be concrete. I have a feeling you're doing what Lobster Peterson is doing by (1) saying something uncontroversial but vaguely running counter to progressivism ("hierarchies exist and are inevitable), (2) waiting for people to take the bait by giving their own interpretation of the vague yet suggestive statement ("so you say discrimination is socially necessary to achieve better standards of living?"), and then (3) complain that everyone is reading too much into what you're saying/ having the wrong interpretation of it ("I never said that, I only said that hierarchies are naturally occurring!") What I'm saying here is: what's your point? Be specific.
@@paulworkswellwithothers9735 Well Relational/Social Egalitarians want citizen to have the same social status as any other citizen. Doyle said this would win over authoritarianism, classism ++. I just wanted to mention that if Egalitarianism wins we would probably have less innovation and productivity because people are motivated by social status. When it comes to hierarchies I guess its a meme, just used it to segue into my point.
@@tamujin11122 Social status is one motivating factor. There are others. A desire to create: I don't create music for social status, but rather to share and take part in a group activity (music culture, playing live, collaborating). Wanting to help the common good is another factor.
To be fair if what you want is to remove the status connected to things like your nature(what your born like) I think that would be good, I realize egalitarianism is super vague so I might need you to be more specific.
Uniqueness and generalness are never mutually exclusive. A unique person can only be unique if there is such a thing as "man", and that unique man is also a man, otherwise you can't name it. Unique is a general term itself. And "man" is only extracted from unique example and can not be reduced to it, otherwise two are same. Every person, every object being unique to some extent, and generalities are something other than unique observable example is an accepted philosophical position of nearly every philosopher.
I would say it implies individuality even within character types but being an individual doesn't mean you have a special role to play. Any number of the mothers, for example, could be the last girl. But they would be the last girl simply because they survived longest not because they had a character shaped by a trope that predetermined they must be "the last girl."
I find it hilarious that slasher movies were so controversial in the 80s for, you know, the sex and violence, when the themes usually promote abstinence and "purity."
I think it had sth to do with the fact that they emphasized the purity of the final girl by contrasting it with the oversexualization of most other characters
"A Lateral, not Vertical, power structure where specialness is not a prerequisite to rights, privledge, or empathy. A Cooperative where no one is fungible or disposable and no one is special or elite. People form interdependencies with each other of their own free will and may leave at any time if they wish. No one earns a place in Society or the empathy of the [Community] by proving themselves unique. It's simply assumed that everyone is deserving of both." I swear, I'm going to start a commune someday with that as the mission statement.
Interesting that the horror genre's fascination with "the insufficient man", as you put it, corresponds with the first steps toward research in serial killers at the Behavioral Science Unit in the FBI, who, at least believed, they saw a pattern in serial killers over sexual inadequacy, unusual fetishes, mother issues, etc.
I have never seen a slasher movie but am disturbed by that characterisation of the genre. Is it really, accurately portrayed here? As a kind of more-murdery-than-the-original adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
I never made the chocolate factory comparison (and I absolutely will in the future, thank you) but yeah. It generally starts with a group and shaves them off one by one. The Scream series even makes this part of its commentary. And Cabin in the Woods (spoilers, but you don’t watch slashers anyways) the real big bad is a command center, not unlike NASA during a launch, that forcibly sacrifice 5 archetypical teens in region specific tropes to ancient gods to stave off their destruction of humanity. In the American sacrifice the “virgin” must survive or die last. So it’s really just a big critique on the chocolate factory formula.
@8:50 - The "fetishization of the virgin" trope is further subverted by the way she's carrying the dripping gas pump in a phallic pose/position, turning her, symbolically, into an alchemical Androgyne.
I have to point out that "Scream" actually challenges this trope, and I don't mean in the sense of your point in the last video that a trope is not a single person, etc. I mean in the sense that the "Scream" films were all about seeing the tropes, and then commenting on them through challenges in the films: that was rather the point of the series, and what I enjoyed most about them, especially as one who hates slasher films. Sidney may be the lead, but Gale is just as important and also survives all the films, and she's everything Sidney is not. Sidney also wasn't a virgin by the end of the first film, which was rather the point: she won anyway. You also have throw away female and male characters, just there to die, but also male characters you're very upset about being hurt or dying (Dewey and Randy). And I certainly did care when Hallie was killed in "Scream 2," just as I cared about Derek's death. Females and males are equal victims of Ghostface, and both male and female victims were a range of types across the films. And 2 of the 5 Ghostfaces were female, both of them being the leaders/manipulators of the men in "Scream 2" and "Scream 4," even killing their puppet killer "partner." That all said, I am enjoying this series. I'd love to see you expand it to television since women hold far more action roles on the small screen (thank you "Xena: Warrior Princess"). You made one passing reference to "Jessica Jones" which I would argue is the most feminist show out there. It is headed by a lot of feminist writers and producers (Liz Friedman, who produced "Xena," produced and wrote in season 1 of JJ, which is why I even turned on the show in the first place). Books could be written (and should be) on the feminist points in JJ. Good stuff though. Glad I stumbled on your channel. I've really loved your approach on a range of topics.
it's a stunningly good description of the Not Like The Other Girls trope, which is fitting since horror movies seem to run on the premise that this very specific idea of femininity is special enough to merit being the Final Girl almost universally
“More male” than JD? What? When? How? Also it’s pretty clear she’s NOT smarter than other girls. She thinks she is but by the middle of it, she realizes she’s as much of an ignorant teenager as everyone else. Heathers is a dark parody of 80’s teen movies, ofc Veronica _seems_ like a “not like other girls” girl. Her character is literally a parody of them.
My internal fanboy is telling me to tell you this: I wouldn't use Sidney from Scream as an example of a cliche final girl. Like, ever. In fact, this movie is already making a parody of the trope, something that becomes clear with the fact that, for starters, she is NOT a virgin! she actually has sex with one of the killers. Randy, who actually is a virgin, makes a joke about the purity of horror movie survivors at the end. He's sort of a... final boy? lol Also! the film at 4:23 is the first Texas Chainsaw, not the second one as the label indicates. Rant over. Love your videos!! :)
Kaiser Williams Three Arrows shouted you out recently, and I forgot to follow up on it by visiting your channel. I'm glad you commented here, because it reminded me to go check out your videos.
I think the emphasis on purity in the analysis of Final Girls is a bit overstated. A lot of them were no less sexual than their counterparts-- mind, Laurie was nerdy and bookish, but she clearly had desires for Ben Tramer, and smoked weed with her friends. And Carpenter rejected any notion that the victims became so "because" they indulged in vices. To him, what they were doing was just normal teenage stuff, the killer was just a random, brutal murderer that represented the American id. There's a lot more nuance to it, especially in early examples.
One rebuttal may come from Doctor Wolfula's review of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre". It has nothing to do with the woman and how she's characterized; instead, it has to do with "symbolacy of the killer", using your words. According to Doctor Wolfula, Leatherface is a confused character, who reacts to youth invading his abode and slaughters them. There is an uneasiness presented in Leatherface's killing of some of the young characters. Is he lamenting at what he did; is he worried about being discovered for what he did? Without making him appear sympathetic, one has to call into question whether it is justified to call Leatherface a villain or evil? Or, is it even possible that he belongs to a different classification that is a tad different from the other two labels? He doesn't come across as ruthless, spontaneous and unreflective. Also, you acknowledge that the footage at the 4:25 as being from "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2", but it is from the first film. Perhaps someone has already stated that in the comments. I do so because I edit citations and am keen on giving credit where it is properly due.
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a great exploration of the Final Girl trope (and slasher tropes in general) in a black comedy context. Edit: And naturally he has a clip of it in the video which I missed. Sorry Ian, forgive we of little faith.
I mean from a writing perspective, a knife is nice because it doesn’t need reloading and it usually forces some kind of interaction with the killer and victim-both useful properties
I feel obliged to mention that we are often encouraged to see the victims of horror movies as cannon fodder period, not just the female characters. Also I would argue furiosas character is special, shes the one who allows the escape by captaining the war rig, other characters can shoot but she can shoot better, shes often the one in charge giving orders to the other characters, her face is I believe the last shot in the movie.....
I half wish you had included in jest the halloween episode from boy meets world that makes fun of this slasher film trope. "Virgins! Virgins never die!"
I: re: 8:17 - 8:52 - are you saying the Mad Max movie literally runs (well, _drives)_ on anarchist ideals? All the previous videos of this series already made me want to watch it, but this observation seals the deal
I actually haven't seen these horror movies, but I have seen Cabin In The Woods, which concludes with a denial of this trope. The Powers That Be demand that the Final Girl be the last one standing, but she refuses to make that the case.
5:20-5:57 more mental gymnastics in an attempt to force an arrival at a previously assumed point. Step 1 - make a conclusion. Step 2 - plenty of ridiculous, just absurd mental gymnastics to justify how the conclusion 'maybe could fit'. Easy on the bias there.
As a female feminist, I think you are doing a very important thing by examining female ideas. Period. You are using your privilege for positive change in the world, which is the best possible use of it. Thank you for speaking up for women by speaking the truth in an understandable way and challenging others to think about feminine ideas. You are a true feminist, and a credit to your gender, race, and class. You can be proud of your good work: it's important. :)
"Yonic" is the adjective form of "yoni", a word from Hinduism meaning "the vulva, especially as a symbol of divine procreative energy conventionally represented by a circular stone." It's often paired with the lingam, which is a symbolic penis.
I really cannot understand left rubes obsession with Fury Road. If there was ever a movie which glorifies toxic masculinity and "specialness", it's this one.
So the heroes are a cooperative and the villains are a lateral structure with one person at the top, conferred specialness by virtue of his power and strength? You know, there seems to be a social system that is bent toward a singular point of power and influence, and another system wherein social power is shared and everyone is taken care of. What might those systems be called in our real world? Man I just can't think of it, maybe a little capital might job my memory.
With respect, I don't think that's an error. Her name is Ellen Ripley, but IIRC, almost everybody in the films refers to her as "Ripley" throughout, to the point that it's a reveal in ALIENS when she tells Hicks that her name is Ellen (and in a scene deleted from the theatrical cut at that).
i suddenly have a realization of how easily Infinity War could have fall into a scary movie stereotype you mention here, if it was written by a less experience writer. Thanos could have been the big scary monster, hero by hero die off one by one until only Stark left, the "final girl" that shared a bit of a view of the "monster".
Well the pregnant one is "special." Not because she's not a virgin. But because children, especially new ones ie babies (people don't care as much about them after toddler age) are the most important thing to people.
Yes, yes they are. This does not deny the fact that she's known by her last name. When you think of Ripley, you think of "Ripley". You don't think of "Ellen".
The example is of these characters having boy's name, and that remains true, as you identify Ripley as "Ripley". The fact that the other woman character also goes by her last name does not deny that example.
Holy crap, you're REALY stretching for this one. So let me get this straight: A girl being special is sexist because that means the other women don't have "value" and therefore all other women are "without value." DISPITE the fact that simply clumping all women as the same or wanting them to all be the same is easily sexist. This is like Feminism 101. How did we get so far the rabbit hole that having a main character with skills is somehow a "direct" insult to her gender? Not to mention the other men that get killed like the "stupid women" and there is hardly ever a man that saves the day in these movies (there are exceptions but you didn't even knowledge the idea). Now if you weren't a sexist man, maybe you could actually watch a movie without judging each and every woman as being mere "projections of their gender." Let's reverse the gender roles, shall we? Let's say every women in these horror movie tropes are men. And every man in these horror movies are women. You got a nerd who doesn't quite fit in with the popular kids. This creates sympathy for our main hero (or at least attempts to). He's got a moral compass and no one else takes him seriously. There's a crazy monster killing people and he has to survive or save what friends he can. It is up to HIM to use his wits and skill to be the last one standing. Sometimes it's pure luck, but most of the time there was a clue that the hero was able to obtain wile all the other kids failed to see it. If it's a good movie, the third act is satisfying because the hero went through a journey. They changed and that transformation was what helped them overcome conflict. Now I imagine in that scenario you never once thought the other kids were a bad representation of their sex simply because the hero was so good (or special). That's because you're not automatically looking down on them like you do with women. This is you. This is not movies. You don't respect women and it is YOU who can't take them seriously if their breasts or hips just happen to be in the shot. That has to be downplayed in order for you to even acknowledge their value. You are not a Feminist. Real talk: the apples you are comparing are horror movies. And the oranges are action movies. Horror movies have A LOT of tropes. They're pretty bad. And... they are kinda sexist. It's not the highest brow of entertainment. You are extremely welcome to criticize horror movies and their sexism. But, you're comparing all of these tropes to Mad Max- a primarily action film. And to state the obvious: THE HERO IN ACTION MOVIES ARE ALWAYS SPECIAL. Should I even have to mention Rey from Star Wars right now? While you claim that everyone in Mad Max are on the same playing field, you could argue that Furiosa is special. You could argue that John Connor is special. Anyone who is the main protagonist is special. It's not a movie if they're just like everyone else and have no distinction. I mean sure, I guess your definition of "special" here would be different than the typical action movie. But such specialness has nothing to do with her womanhood or the other women around her. She's special because she's different from the women AND men in the movie. The fact you failed to see that (as well as the fact that Fury Road is the only movie you seem to approve of) really begs the desire for you to make another video addressing such issues. I write these long comments not to be another jerk on the internet. I really want you to reflect on yourself and find ways for improvement. Are you really doing this for the right reasons? In which ways could this have been said better? How can we address sexism or bias without being sexist or bias ourselves? Are we allowed to value women based on character? Or do we have to value them based on their depiction? Can we not accept others for being different? This video says otherwise.
That's the biggest victory of this movie. The message that cooperation, solidarity, compassion and egalitarianism will win over authoritarianism, classism and toxic masculinity, and that the first set of values isn't exclusively feminine and icky.
yet hierarchies seam to form at every turn of human endeavor. Also the motivation that status bring is a powerful one, a driving force for innovation and cooperation, if we truly became socially egalitarian this would diminish.
Hindrance How exactly would your philosophy play out? Please be concrete. I have a feeling you're doing what Lobster Peterson is doing by (1) saying something uncontroversial but vaguely running counter to progressivism ("hierarchies exist and are inevitable), (2) waiting for people to take the bait by giving their own interpretation of the vague yet suggestive statement ("so you say discrimination is socially necessary to achieve better standards of living?"), and then (3) complain that everyone is reading too much into what you're saying/ having the wrong interpretation of it ("I never said that, I only said that hierarchies are naturally occurring!")
What I'm saying here is: what's your point? Be specific.
@@paulworkswellwithothers9735 Well Relational/Social Egalitarians want citizen to have the same social status as any other citizen. Doyle said this would win over authoritarianism, classism ++. I just wanted to mention that if Egalitarianism wins we would probably have less innovation and productivity because people are motivated by social status. When it comes to hierarchies I guess its a meme, just used it to segue into my point.
@@tamujin11122 Social status is one motivating factor. There are others. A desire to create: I don't create music for social status, but rather to share and take part in a group activity (music culture, playing live, collaborating). Wanting to help the common good is another factor.
To be fair if what you want is to remove the status connected to things like your nature(what your born like) I think that would be good, I realize egalitarianism is super vague so I might need you to be more specific.
It's interesting how the reason that _nobody_ is special is near-indistinguishable from an argument that _everyone_ is special.
Syndrome: "And when everyone's super, no-one will be."
"Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else."
Uniqueness and generalness are never mutually exclusive. A unique person can only be unique if there is such a thing as "man", and that unique man is also a man, otherwise you can't name it. Unique is a general term itself. And "man" is only extracted from unique example and can not be reduced to it, otherwise two are same. Every person, every object being unique to some extent, and generalities are something other than unique observable example is an accepted philosophical position of nearly every philosopher.
Timothy McLean
Maybe that's why I found the point at 7:13 confusing. Non-interchangeable seems to imply special.
I would say it implies individuality even within character types but being an individual doesn't mean you have a special role to play. Any number of the mothers, for example, could be the last girl. But they would be the last girl simply because they survived longest not because they had a character shaped by a trope that predetermined they must be "the last girl."
I find it hilarious that slasher movies were so controversial in the 80s for, you know, the sex and violence, when the themes usually promote abstinence and "purity."
I think it had sth to do with the fact that they emphasized the purity of the final girl by contrasting it with the oversexualization of most other characters
I like how phony Joe's medals are. One of them is just a random piece of some random circuit board cut to shape lol.
All medals are just random objects that we assign value too
"It's drivin' me nuts!" LOL
MASKulinity thanks for coming to my TEDTalk
👏👏👏
😩😂
"It's literally the difference between a tower and a convoy."
I just really liked that observation.
"A Lateral, not Vertical, power structure where specialness is not a prerequisite to rights, privledge, or empathy. A Cooperative where no one is fungible or disposable and no one is special or elite. People form interdependencies with each other of their own free will and may leave at any time if they wish. No one earns a place in Society or the empathy of the [Community] by proving themselves unique. It's simply assumed that everyone is deserving of both."
I swear, I'm going to start a commune someday with that as the mission statement.
Interesting that the horror genre's fascination with "the insufficient man", as you put it, corresponds with the first steps toward research in serial killers at the Behavioral Science Unit in the FBI, who, at least believed, they saw a pattern in serial killers over sexual inadequacy, unusual fetishes, mother issues, etc.
Oh my god I just realized Fury Road is an allegory about the Spice Girls
Every boy every girl, spice up the world!
I have never seen a slasher movie but am disturbed by that characterisation of the genre.
Is it really, accurately portrayed here? As a kind of more-murdery-than-the-original adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
I never made the chocolate factory comparison (and I absolutely will in the future, thank you) but yeah. It generally starts with a group and shaves them off one by one. The Scream series even makes this part of its commentary. And Cabin in the Woods (spoilers, but you don’t watch slashers anyways) the real big bad is a command center, not unlike NASA during a launch, that forcibly sacrifice 5 archetypical teens in region specific tropes to ancient gods to stave off their destruction of humanity. In the American sacrifice the “virgin” must survive or die last. So it’s really just a big critique on the chocolate factory formula.
That Jason X scene is still funny enough to redeem having to watch it at all.
Never thought Fraggle Rock would be invoked in movie analysis.
I feel like horror leans into tropes harder than most genres.
3:18 Hey... I'm not like other girls... I've got... SNAKE ARMS
@8:50 - The "fetishization of the virgin" trope is further subverted by the way she's carrying the dripping gas pump in a phallic pose/position, turning her, symbolically, into an alchemical Androgyne.
The yonic nature of the shape of the rabbithole that is phallic imagery is such a fatal blow to all wannabe Freuds.
Hey man, great video, but did you just compare the wives to fraggles?
fukin right i did
@@InnuendoStudios ALWP.
6:29 IT'S DRIVIN' ME NUTS
I remember thinking that exact punchline in the theater 😂
I have to point out that "Scream" actually challenges this trope, and I don't mean in the sense of your point in the last video that a trope is not a single person, etc. I mean in the sense that the "Scream" films were all about seeing the tropes, and then commenting on them through challenges in the films: that was rather the point of the series, and what I enjoyed most about them, especially as one who hates slasher films.
Sidney may be the lead, but Gale is just as important and also survives all the films, and she's everything Sidney is not. Sidney also wasn't a virgin by the end of the first film, which was rather the point: she won anyway.
You also have throw away female and male characters, just there to die, but also male characters you're very upset about being hurt or dying (Dewey and Randy). And I certainly did care when Hallie was killed in "Scream 2," just as I cared about Derek's death. Females and males are equal victims of Ghostface, and both male and female victims were a range of types across the films.
And 2 of the 5 Ghostfaces were female, both of them being the leaders/manipulators of the men in "Scream 2" and "Scream 4," even killing their puppet killer "partner."
That all said, I am enjoying this series. I'd love to see you expand it to television since women hold far more action roles on the small screen (thank you "Xena: Warrior Princess"). You made one passing reference to "Jessica Jones" which I would argue is the most feminist show out there. It is headed by a lot of feminist writers and producers (Liz Friedman, who produced "Xena," produced and wrote in season 1 of JJ, which is why I even turned on the show in the first place). Books could be written (and should be) on the feminist points in JJ.
Good stuff though. Glad I stumbled on your channel. I've really loved your approach on a range of topics.
This series is a masterpiece
Your Fraggle Rock bits just made my day, in this excellent series.
Smarter than other girls, but not one of the guys. More male than the villan, less female than the other girls. 🤔 VERONICA FROM HEATHERS
Wait... you'v just enlightened me. Thanks
it's a stunningly good description of the Not Like The Other Girls trope, which is fitting since horror movies seem to run on the premise that this very specific idea of femininity is special enough to merit being the Final Girl almost universally
“More male” than JD? What? When? How?
Also it’s pretty clear she’s NOT smarter than other girls. She thinks she is but by the middle of it, she realizes she’s as much of an ignorant teenager as everyone else.
Heathers is a dark parody of 80’s teen movies, ofc Veronica _seems_ like a “not like other girls” girl. Her character is literally a parody of them.
@@DeathnoteBB the thing is, she isn’t like other girls cause she knows she isn’t like other girls lol
My internal fanboy is telling me to tell you this: I wouldn't use Sidney from Scream as an example of a cliche final girl. Like, ever. In fact, this movie is already making a parody of the trope, something that becomes clear with the fact that, for starters, she is NOT a virgin! she actually has sex with one of the killers. Randy, who actually is a virgin, makes a joke about the purity of horror movie survivors at the end. He's sort of a... final boy? lol
Also! the film at 4:23 is the first Texas Chainsaw, not the second one as the label indicates.
Rant over. Love your videos!! :)
Man am I glad I stumbled across Behind the Mask yesterday.
Kaiser Williams
Three Arrows shouted you out recently, and I forgot to follow up on it by visiting your channel. I'm glad you commented here, because it reminded me to go check out your videos.
I like how the latest Halloween movie somewhat turned the final girls thing on its ear.
It’s only used like twice, for video examples, but I wanted to mention Scream is actually a parody of slasher movies.
Loving this video series so far, but some part of me is defiantly saying "Dare you to review the Expendables".
I think the emphasis on purity in the analysis of Final Girls is a bit overstated. A lot of them were no less sexual than their counterparts-- mind, Laurie was nerdy and bookish, but she clearly had desires for Ben Tramer, and smoked weed with her friends. And Carpenter rejected any notion that the victims became so "because" they indulged in vices. To him, what they were doing was just normal teenage stuff, the killer was just a random, brutal murderer that represented the American id.
There's a lot more nuance to it, especially in early examples.
One rebuttal may come from Doctor Wolfula's review of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre". It has nothing to do with the woman and how she's characterized; instead, it has to do with "symbolacy of the killer", using your words. According to Doctor Wolfula, Leatherface is a confused character, who reacts to youth invading his abode and slaughters them. There is an uneasiness presented in Leatherface's killing of some of the young characters. Is he lamenting at what he did; is he worried about being discovered for what he did? Without making him appear sympathetic, one has to call into question whether it is justified to call Leatherface a villain or evil? Or, is it even possible that he belongs to a different classification that is a tad different from the other two labels? He doesn't come across as ruthless, spontaneous and unreflective.
Also, you acknowledge that the footage at the 4:25 as being from "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2", but it is from the first film. Perhaps someone has already stated that in the comments. I do so because I edit citations and am keen on giving credit where it is properly due.
loving the puppets comparison
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a great exploration of the Final Girl trope (and slasher tropes in general) in a black comedy context.
Edit: And naturally he has a clip of it in the video which I missed. Sorry Ian, forgive we of little faith.
I mean from a writing perspective, a knife is nice because it doesn’t need reloading and it usually forces some kind of interaction with the killer and victim-both useful properties
Ok. You earned a 👍 for the Fraggle reference 😂😂😂
I thought you were going to bring up "The Cabin in the Woods" as a deconstruction
Certainly not a feminist one imo; isn't it about the horror genre specifically?
Wait it isn't? I haven't that movie yet but heard that phrase being thrown a lot so I assumed it to be one.
@@pramitpratimdas8198 I mean, not in my opinion. It doesn't seem super interested in those ideas but maybe I'm not remembering it very well.
@@bostonmarketfeministbookclub feminist part or deconstruction?
@@pramitpratimdas8198 Feminist
I feel obliged to mention that we are often encouraged to see the victims of horror movies as cannon fodder period, not just the female characters. Also I would argue furiosas character is special, shes the one who allows the escape by captaining the war rig, other characters can shoot but she can shoot better, shes often the one in charge giving orders to the other characters, her face is I believe the last shot in the movie.....
Cameron Miller I don't think that makes her the Final Girl, though, as those are simply common traits of a protagonist.
@@hexx2211 I agree.
I’m special?!
Yeah
I half wish you had included in jest the halloween episode from boy meets world that makes fun of this slasher film trope. "Virgins! Virgins never die!"
Slither by James Gunn subverts some of these tropes while doubling down on others. Give it a watch at your first opportunity.
I only just noticed the punchline to my favorite dad joke (it's driving me nuts) flashed on the screen for a second.
INCELS will be the new slashers.
if i wasn’t because they prefer fire arms, i’ll say they had already become that
@@amellirizarry9503 Jesus....you're not wrong, though.
I: re: 8:17 - 8:52 - are you saying the Mad Max movie literally runs (well, _drives)_ on anarchist ideals?
All the previous videos of this series already made me want to watch it, but this observation seals the deal
driving me nuts. amazing
More videos like this series, please! And more videos a la The Alt-Right Playbook! If I give you money via Patreon, will you make more??
Almost 2 mins and you've already given me a headache
I actually haven't seen these horror movies, but I have seen Cabin In The Woods, which concludes with a denial of this trope. The Powers That Be demand that the Final Girl be the last one standing, but she refuses to make that the case.
Every part is good, thanks!=8)-DX
Holy shit, fury road was a progressive masterpiece
I know it isn't the point but the graphic of Laurie Strode killing Jason Vorhees messes with my head too much lol
Ash Williams is still best final Girl!
WOOOO!
Behind the mask is so fuckin' good.
Being a good mechanic and improviser is at least as important as shooting well.
I kinda wanna hear your take on Lucy
Shout out to Carol Clover and Men, Women, and Chainsaws
5:15 - [pictured] OP's mother
And above Joe there's his mama
Shout-out to Behind the mask ! such a good movie.
To this day I find weird when i see a man named Sidney.
5:20-5:57 more mental gymnastics in an attempt to force an arrival at a previously assumed point. Step 1 - make a conclusion. Step 2 - plenty of ridiculous, just absurd mental gymnastics to justify how the conclusion 'maybe could fit'.
Easy on the bias there.
It's basically nakama power.
This is the episode where I just start weeping uncontrollably.
OK, but can we talk about fraggle rock?
FINALLY SOME GOOD FUCKING -FOOD- WOMEN CHARACTERS
I like the aceptance of male weakness of that white guy
As a female feminist, I think you are doing a very important thing by examining female ideas. Period. You are using your privilege for positive change in the world, which is the best possible use of it. Thank you for speaking up for women by speaking the truth in an understandable way and challenging others to think about feminine ideas. You are a true feminist, and a credit to your gender, race, and class. You can be proud of your good work: it's important. :)
I'm starting to think you like this madmax movie
God this movie is fucking good
See the Cabin in the Woods.
Okay I'm certain of it, you and I watched completely different versions of Psycho (1960)
Ripley's name is Ellen though :P
But she is rarely referred to as Ellen and was in fact written to be a man.
Isn't that the first texas chainsaw at 4:21?
It is.
Hi, I work for BBTV and would love to connect with a business opportunity. Please let me know!
I don't want to get judgy, but Sydney is most definitely a female name. Coming from an Australian dude.
Otherwise nice horror summary vid. Love
Someone help me, what is "yonic"?
"Yonic" is the adjective form of "yoni", a word from Hinduism meaning "the vulva, especially as a symbol of divine procreative energy conventionally represented by a circular stone." It's often paired with the lingam, which is a symbolic penis.
I actually like women who smoke weed.... maybe that’s just me.
Slasher films were made in the 80s, meaning drugs are a bad nono in them.
Yo is Ripley really a first name? I thought that shit was only a last name.
Her first name is Ellen but everyone calls the character Ripley so it's essentially her name
I really cannot understand left rubes obsession with Fury Road. If there was ever a movie which glorifies toxic masculinity and "specialness", it's this one.
So the heroes are a cooperative and the villains are a lateral structure with one person at the top, conferred specialness by virtue of his power and strength? You know, there seems to be a social system that is bent toward a singular point of power and influence, and another system wherein social power is shared and everyone is taken care of. What might those systems be called in our real world? Man I just can't think of it, maybe a little capital might job my memory.
I think possessions were above the masses in the caste system
Just a bit of an error. You name Ripley as having a man's name. I was not aware that "Ellen" was a popular name for men.
Yeah, Ellen's technically Ripley's first name - but consider how often she's actually _called_ that, either in the movie or outside of it.
With respect, I don't think that's an error. Her name is Ellen Ripley, but IIRC, almost everybody in the films refers to her as "Ripley" throughout, to the point that it's a reveal in ALIENS when she tells Hicks that her name is Ellen (and in a scene deleted from the theatrical cut at that).
@@JamesWVanFleet True but a name like Ellen is not as memorable as a name like Ripley
It was not intended as a serious complaint.
I mean it was a role written for a man originally.
i suddenly have a realization of how easily Infinity War could have fall into a scary movie stereotype you mention here, if it was written by a less experience writer. Thanos could have been the big scary monster, hero by hero die off one by one until only Stark left, the "final girl" that shared a bit of a view of the "monster".
Ripley as a name is purposely agender
Well the pregnant one is "special." Not because she's not a virgin. But because children, especially new ones ie babies (people don't care as much about them after toddler age) are the most important thing to people.
She's not even the only pregnant woman in the group of harem escapees
Watching this added like two new reasons to my epic list of why Cabin in the Woods is a terrible movie
Why?
You mention Ripley as a masculine name but the role was explicitly a non gendered role
holy shit. the incredibles is an anti-communist movie
So Joe using white powder for his radiated skin is supposed to make him more masculine? Yeah right
whiteness.. I almost Epsteined myself
You seem to imply that women being virgins on their wedding day is not something women should strive for?
Can you explain why they should strive for that?
@@elliotk.8964 I think thats a personal choice as with all sexually related things.
"Smart, brave, and resourceful people are typically the heroes of the story and the audience likes them" yeah no shit sherlock.
Whiteness is manly? Spending any amount of time at bodybuilding competitions will dissuade that notion.
Ripley is not a man's name, that's her last name. Ellen is her first name.
Right but she's known by her last name, which is more a masculine social thing, not by Ellen
Carys Nevard Everyone in the first Alien film goes by their last names.
Yes, yes they are. This does not deny the fact that she's known by her last name. When you think of Ripley, you think of "Ripley". You don't think of "Ellen".
My point was I don't think it really works as part of the example. The other female character went by Lambert, she was a whining, crybaby.
The example is of these characters having boy's name, and that remains true, as you identify Ripley as "Ripley". The fact that the other woman character also goes by her last name does not deny that example.
this obviously gay man is trying to tell me how I feel about women
@eafox I won't take it off, but will tip it, m'lady.
Actually, he's pansexual and polyamorous.
@@legzfalloffgirl5148 so he himself feels this way?
Holy crap, you're REALY stretching for this one.
So let me get this straight:
A girl being special is sexist because that means the other women don't have "value" and therefore all other women are "without value."
DISPITE the fact that simply clumping all women as the same or wanting them to all be the same is easily sexist. This is like Feminism 101. How did we get so far the rabbit hole that having a main character with skills is somehow a "direct" insult to her gender?
Not to mention the other men that get killed like the "stupid women" and there is hardly ever a man that saves the day in these movies (there are exceptions but you didn't even knowledge the idea).
Now if you weren't a sexist man, maybe you could actually watch a movie without judging each and every woman as being mere "projections of their gender." Let's reverse the gender roles, shall we? Let's say every women in these horror movie tropes are men. And every man in these horror movies are women. You got a nerd who doesn't quite fit in with the popular kids. This creates sympathy for our main hero (or at least attempts to). He's got a moral compass and no one else takes him seriously. There's a crazy monster killing people and he has to survive or save what friends he can. It is up to HIM to use his wits and skill to be the last one standing. Sometimes it's pure luck, but most of the time there was a clue that the hero was able to obtain wile all the other kids failed to see it. If it's a good movie, the third act is satisfying because the hero went through a journey. They changed and that transformation was what helped them overcome conflict.
Now I imagine in that scenario you never once thought the other kids were a bad representation of their sex simply because the hero was so good (or special). That's because you're not automatically looking down on them like you do with women. This is you. This is not movies. You don't respect women and it is YOU who can't take them seriously if their breasts or hips just happen to be in the shot. That has to be downplayed in order for you to even acknowledge their value. You are not a Feminist.
Real talk: the apples you are comparing are horror movies. And the oranges are action movies. Horror movies have A LOT of tropes. They're pretty bad. And... they are kinda sexist. It's not the highest brow of entertainment. You are extremely welcome to criticize horror movies and their sexism. But, you're comparing all of these tropes to Mad Max- a primarily action film. And to state the obvious: THE HERO IN ACTION MOVIES ARE ALWAYS SPECIAL. Should I even have to mention Rey from Star Wars right now? While you claim that everyone in Mad Max are on the same playing field, you could argue that Furiosa is special. You could argue that John Connor is special. Anyone who is the main protagonist is special. It's not a movie if they're just like everyone else and have no distinction. I mean sure, I guess your definition of "special" here would be different than the typical action movie. But such specialness has nothing to do with her womanhood or the other women around her. She's special because she's different from the women AND men in the movie. The fact you failed to see that (as well as the fact that Fury Road is the only movie you seem to approve of) really begs the desire for you to make another video addressing such issues.
I write these long comments not to be another jerk on the internet. I really want you to reflect on yourself and find ways for improvement. Are you really doing this for the right reasons? In which ways could this have been said better? How can we address sexism or bias without being sexist or bias ourselves? Are we allowed to value women based on character? Or do we have to value them based on their depiction? Can we not accept others for being different? This video says otherwise.
I don't think you know anything about the real world or, by proxy, entertainment at all.
Special Olympics.