"Hey Jim, we need to keep the feminists happy." "Eh, just have the broad bonk the nearly dead villain over the head and smirk at the camera." "Will do." This is how I imagine the conversations in Hollywood go down when writing a female character for an action movie.
This reminds me of a sickening argument I've seen misogynists make about Fury Road, (trigger warning for rape) that: "The wives are spoiled, stupid, ungrateful, and wrong to escape because Joe treated them 'really well.' The wives had it better than anyone else in the movie because they had water, food, safety, medical attention, and tons of books so they had it 'easy' and shouldn't have left." This is a real argument I've seen more than once (and once was too much already.) Just because the wives had basic needs provided for them, doesn't negate the fact they were being held in a literal prison. Try using that same line of logic irl, and argue the exact same thing to someone in prison, to slaves in the southern U.S. before the civil war, or to a kidnapping victim: [Prisoners, slaves, kidnapping victims] are spoiled, stupid, ungrateful, and wrong to escape because [their captor, their owner] treated them 'really well.' The [prisoners, slaves, kidnapping victims] had [or have] it better than anyone else in the [prison, plantation, basement] because they had water, food, safety, medical attention, and tons of books so they had it 'easy' and shouldn't have left." "You should be grateful for being forcefully locked up for the rest of your life, even though you havent committed a crime! Be thankful your basic needs are met and that your freedom is taken away from you!" I mean, besides being held against their will, they *only* have to deal with not having freedom... well that... and the rape. Lots and lots of rape. But I guess the argument I'm referring to (that real life people make, may I remind you) about fictional characters doesn't translate to real life because the violence and rape never happens prisoners nowadays, or happened to slaves, or kidnapping victims... oh wait... I guarantee the idiots that make this argument have never been raped. A lot of women would rather die than have to live with brutal daily rape for the rest of their lives. Speaking from a survivor's perspective, I'd rather get a bullet to the head. Not only do you have to endure a living hell, you also have your humanity erased and become nothing more than an object or the equivalent of a "well cared for" dog. A dog that gets beat by its owner and gets raped. But it's cool because the owner feeds it and gives their dog water, food, and shelter. So if the owner does a beastiality, the dog should suck it up because most dogs have it way worse and get put to sleep. I'm sorry for the rant but it's absolutely disgusting that real people make this argument about the wives in the film. This is an opinion I've only ever seen men express and it's usually followed by adding that if they were in the same fictional universe and could become a wife in exchange for the "perks", that they'd "put on a dress with lipstick for Joe, suck his D**k, and let him do whatever else to them." Even though in that hypothetical situation, they have additional advantages. Biologically, they'd have a better chance at physically overpowering Joe if they wanted to, as he's sickly. But most importantly they'd have a choice to be in Joe's harem or not in the first place. The wives didn't have the luxury of a choice. Sometimes I wonder why it's so damn difficult for some men to simply view women as human beings.
Question: Don't you think that there would be women who would actually volunteer for the position of breeder in exchange for the perks? That some mothers might even groom their daughters specifically for the job to ensure their safety and security. If not, wtf do you think sugar daddies are?
@nihilismful Nobody said they didn't earn their money. In fact that's exactly what I'm saying, the breeders earn their keep by being useful to the establishment
@nihilismful I'm really sorry that that happened to her. Rape really is the worst thing humans do. But I don't understand how this makes me gross. Context is very important. In any civilization rape is an abhorrent thing. All I'm saying is in a resource scarce situation fertility becomes a marketable asset. By no means should any job be forced onto anyone, but that should not bar us from discussing the merits of the job, however distasteful you find it
@@kindbrute4640 If you look hard enough you can find people for anything. Surely out of the billions of people on earth there would always be someone who is okay with doing something ridiculously horrible in exchange for these perks. That doesn't mean anything, though. As for having no other choice, that doesn't make it less horrible at all. You either die out on the street or get tortured daily. Sure, some people might choose torture or force it upon their loved ones. So what? What point are you trying to make? There is no point in discussing the merits of the job.
I always really loved how the wives *do* stuff in combat. There's something about the kind of teamwork they exhibit together with Furiosa and Max that strikes me as, for lack of a better word, _really cool._
The concept that the innocents who don't fight can have autonomy and actively HELP the fighters is honestly something I've never thought of before. But you're right. The wives don't refuse to fight because they're women or damsels... They've literally never been taught how to. And they actively contribute to change the world around them the best they can despite that. This movie really does have a healthy balance of people/types that you don't see in a lot of action movies. And it's helped to shift my view of characters like the wives a lot. Thank you for that! Wish we saw it in more stories.
An action movie where people accomplish things by non-violent means, using non-violent skillsets as more than a glorified key or comic relief? Unheard of!
@@ventose7718 no, no, no it could be a strategy-action hybrid movie, using a combination of wit, and power to win against the antagonist. For example There're dozens of types of jobs required in a war, most of them aren't about violence, like logistics, healthcare, therapy, and transportation, in most war settings. Having a mixture of these types in a war setting, can be a valid approach, and can make the world feel real. It would still be an action movie, if there're firefights, and glorificaion of violence. There're could tactics involved, convoys , Air drops, nursing, etc. could enhance the action, and give it weight, it wouldn't be a full on power fantasy, since one person alone isn't doing everything, but if the protagonist is doing an important job, and is a core part of the collaboration it could enstill the same feeling. Thus retaining the action movie aspectþ
@@sightseeing7993 Warboy: jumps off a moving vehicle with 2 RPG spears to suicide bomb another moving vehicle. Idout Chuds: NoT EvEn An AcTIoN MOOOviE!!1!
Thumbs up for Anita Sarkeesian. That woman is a godsend and we don't deserve her. The amount of shit she had to deal with JUST to get her message across...
Big same. I wasn’t interested after the trailer and thought it would be a generic testosterone filled car fest same old same old. Then the manosphere whining started up and got me interested enough to see why were so many dudes making a fuss and trying to boycott and claim some feminist plot. Was absolutely blown away by the movies visuals and the way it showed so much story in so little words.
love it that you pointed out the small helpful things, my mom only let me watch raiders of the lost ark as a kid cause she was annoyed that the women in the other indiana jones movies weren't even resourceful
This may seem trivial compared to the rest of the video, but I just thought I’d say I found it hilarious how when you say ‘deuteragonist’ I hear ‘duderagonist’
Remember that part in James bong specter when the former child prostitute is trotted out in front of bond and the villain in in handcuffs, scotch is balanced on her head, she’s shot (presumably in the face) then bond says a waste of good scotch?
I dont remember the bond movie it was in but the woman it it is completly helpless in the first part and then suddenly she isnt anymore. As if her personality changed in total...
Well people don't feel sorry for men, most that die in action movies are men so you are desensitized to it. So if you want to be reductionist you could say that men are treated as less valuable than puppies. If someone kicks the dude who cares, if someone kicks the dog its evil. ;)
Correction. WHITE women are treated as puppies. Notice how all the examples provided in the women are all white. Black women aren't even afforded that luxury, because in society they aren't even considered as women. Let's not assume that all women experience the same kind of sexism.
hey just starting to watch thought i was going to click out in the first few minutes but just from the intro this is awesome, cant wait to finish the rest and also for the rest of your uploads!
It's like you've only picked movies I haven't seen lmao j/k that's clearly not your fault and despite this you explain things in a way I can understand most concepts without having to sit through dozens of these types of movies.
I remember seeing this movie in theaters and being pleasantly surprised how much character the wives had. Usually you're lucky to get a character like Furiosa as the token main female, a Black Widow-esqe figure, any other women are set dressing. Not here every single woman had her own character, her own story and felt like a rounded person. They were never passive just at different skill levels than other characters. No one is useless or flat. My favorite line from the movie came from Angharad, "Who killed the world?" That never would have happened in your standard action movie.
You know, that Joss Whedon "But youre just a girl" moment is so weird and off-putting. Like, isnt there something purely unnatural about that reaction coming from a grown man? It feels like something only a movie character who knows they are in a movie and understands a trope is being subverted would say. Like, if that kind of thing happened in real life, I don't think anyone, not even a huge misogynist, would react that way. Its just not how people talk or react or think. When a real-life expectation we have is subverted, we don't voice it that way, nobody does.
I agree from a basic standpoint. That is to say without any research I can’t rebuke this in a compelling way. But from what I recall, this episode and season of Buffy was very different in themes and how some characters acted. (I didn’t remember the exchange immediately, but from how Buffy acted I could tell around when this happened). So I can’t say if this part did something for the episode which it very well could have.
FrankieSmileShow I'd like to agree with you that the scenario would seem forced and unlikely, but I've met enough of my fair share (although I wouldn't say it's very common) of guys who have the same gut reaction as the guy in that scene when faced with or the mention of woman capable of holding their own in a fight. They do tend to be a bit more verbose about it. Very depressing to observe. In terms of just the plot though. Yeah I dislike it when a character says out loud a theme or trope the movie/series is using; really grating.
I'd say specifically for that Buffy scene that Xander *isn't* a grown man... He's a ~14 year old high schooler at the time, which makes the line far more believable to me at least, since saying the first thing that comes to mind in the simplest and most unfiltered fashion is kinda something a lot of teenagers do. Also, Whedon's obsession with the trope is evidenced by his insistent overuse of it in his later work; I wouldn't necessarily rush to too much criticism of his first use of it when it was a far fresher trope as the best way to criticize the trope. And I think its use in this video has more to do with the former point (distilling the trope to its simplest form) than with the latter point (that it's an egregious or bad use of the trope). Whedon's first use of the trope in 90's TV for teenagers I think is far more excusable than his umpteenth use of it in a big budget movie about super powered beings... 😝
It's offputting as a reaction from an adult man in the year 2010. However it is a completely natural reaction, the expected one even, from a man in the year 1980. Want to guess how many times it's actually been said whenever my sister tried to get into sports?
That Buffy clip at the 3 minute mark... you cut out the bit that gives the point to the guy saying that. It works on two levels: she just casually saved him from a huge vampire, without breaking a sweat, and he not knowing what a slayer is, who Buffy is, stammers "How do you do that? You're just a girl", as in, you look just like any other girl. Buffy's answer to that is a world-weary "That's what I've been saying", because she's dealing with so many bigger problems right now (carrying an enormous burden in the wake of her mother's death and protecting her 'sister' from a literal hell god who seems unstoppable) that doing away with some run-of-the-mill vampire isn't even worth her full attention at this point. Her reaction to this kid's words in Season 1 or 2 might have been some snarky wise-crack, but at this point, she's just so tired, she dearly wishes she was 'just a girl'. That she didn't have so much power and responsibility, both in her family structure and as a supernatural hero. It's a re-examination of what it means to be this ass-kicking archetype when the real things beating you down are the day to day burdens of living, rather than the easily-dustable hoards of the undead. So my point is: Joss Whedon is a predictable guy, but Buffy was written with a lot of nuance (by a writing staff that went beyond just Whedon's oversight). I didn't always like her (truly, she grated on me hugely on a regular basis), but I always believed her reactions, she never felt like a tacked on set of faux-minist ideals or a grandstanding anti-archetype. And that clip is kind of proof of that believability, rather than proof of the character's failure.
You're great. In your effort. I agree and disagree with you to various degrees (jaded by "film theory"). But I always see your effort and logic. Thanks. I'll pay you someday.
I realize it's important to break the stereotype of a woman being defenseless / passive when confronted with greater violence than they could possibly exert, but I also think it's important to understand most victims of violence end up shutting down in order to protect themselves, that fighting back in any way will only earn them more serious bruises or even death.
The measure of a warrior is usually their weight or equipment. There's a reason weight limits exist in fighting tournaments, why the current 90lb MMA/Jiu-jitsu expert meme fails against heavyweight boxers, and why guns have a safety mechanism, and why an AK is likely to beat a 9mm in ranged combat. As someone who's learnt a lot of fighting styles but is permanently DYEL, I learnt this lesson the hard way a few times in my life. tl;dr - I'd rather fight an 8st man than a 21st woman.
I don't think Point Break is really an example of this because it's making fun of action movies. It's supposed to be a parody, it's just that nobody noticed. It's such a well shot movie that people went "Yeah, surfboarding bank robbers makes sense I guess".
I have to disagree with you (which I almost never do): the kick the dog moment IS about the dog, for me at least. I don’t give 2 figs about the villain. If I were in that film: I would risk my life or do whatever it takes so that the dog lives, villain be damned. I love Keanu, been crushing on him since I was a kid and he was in Bill & Ted (and that Paula Abdul music video) - but I still refuse to watch these movies because I cannot handle an animal (especially a dog) suffer in any way, let alone die.
I'm not sure I buy the final statement demarcating rescue and escape in this way. Begging someone to get you out of a citadel seems to be functionally identical to a rescue. None of the rescues displayed in this video would have suddenly become escapes (e.g. The Expendables) if the damsel had propositioned her rescuers first.
I think the idea was that instead of Furiosa coming up to them with an escape plan fully made to rescue them, they came up with the plan themselves and got Furiosa on board as part of it, as in, Furiosa was only part of the plan, and not the sole actor in it
I appreciate this series and thank you for putting all the work in. I respectfully disagree with some of your later assertions that being a warrior has nothing to do with gender or nature, there are characteristics such as physical size and aggression that men tend towards more strongly than women.
Cameron Miller 3000 years ago in the arctic women were buried with skis and bows. We were hunters and just as badass as men. Oh, also many viking warriors were women. The agression crap is just male mateguarding that became an issue after humans invented farming.
Dark Twisted Lady why do so many anthropologists think that the women used to gather berries while the men hunted? Why then are men possessed of thicker skulls and generally larger and physically stronger than women?
But gender doesn't automatically make someone a warrior, there are plenty of men who are weak and plenty of women who are strong, sure, as a general trend men are usually physically stronger and usually bigger, but plenty of men aren't big and plenty of women are, and as a trend, women tend to be more dexterous and have a higher pain tolerance than men, which are also aspects that are important for a fighter or a hunter. Besides, when it comes to combat, training is much more important than pure size or aggression, most martial arts movies have a scene where a smaller character beats up a much larger one and no one seems to find that odd, because it's assumed that the smaller fighter has the advantage in training. Granted, it is true that more men fight than women, but that could also be due to social gender inequality (Less women soldiers because women couldn't become soldiers until very recently, for example), so in a world like Fury Road, I think it is very plausible for a woman to become a very competent fighter without social influence and with training.
Max The Cat Yes, men do on average build muscle faster than women but again, in a world like Fury Road that doesn’t matter most of the time, and that’s also not always true for every man and every woman. In Fury Road what matters most is training, experience, equipment and tactics, there’s multiple scenes of old women killing younger, stronger men because they have the better aim and shoot them to death, muscle mass has no bearing on that, neither does it matter at all during the multiple car chases, it doesn’t matter how strong you are if your opponent runs you over with a multiple ton car. So saying that who wins in a fight will always be the bigger, stronger guy is wrong, especially in the context of the movie we’re discussing. I even used an example in my previous comment of the trope in martial arts movies where a smaller, less muscle bound fighter will win over their bigger, stronger opponent due to their wits or superior skill, no one bats an eye when both of those fighters are men but because the smaller fighters a women it suddenly becomes unbelievable?
I think the warrior is more symbolic of a certain type of opposing will not necessarily associated with how physically strong you are. Also when you add things like guns and cars into violence it becomes less about brute strength. But yes some movies do tend to unrealistically portray fights between men and women although I don’t see it as an issue because the vast majority of people know basic physical differences between the sexes
Okay I know you said warning of animal violence at the start of part 1, but then part 1 ended and I forgot about it, and part 2 started on the playlist and you warned me about epilepsy coming in the near future but not the heartbreaking sound of a dog in pain and dying?? I'll be honest, I couldn't hear a word you said after that and I had to stop the video and do something else before I was able to focus again and continue enjoying the analysis. It's just... I'm feeling a bit attacked right now. I do wonder if there wasn't another way to open the topic of abused women than with an abused animal. Like... how about just... abused women...?
OK... You wronged Pepper Pots. Pepper is the total source of all of Iron Man's power by the time Iron man 3 happens. She runs his company and provides him with all of his money, Iron Man has 2 superpowers first he is a genius but second, he is fabulously rich, without his riches his genius is quite limited. We even see this as he goes to the hardware store and makes tools that make him viable but not fully Iron Man. How is she the source of his Genius? Besides providing the funding she also is the only person who can control him, not outright because that isn't really what she wants, but when she points out that his Tinkering is separating him from his own humanity and serving as a distraction from his own trauma she is the only one he listens to. His entire character arch from that point on was defined by what she pointed out to him... where does the man stop and the robot begin? She isn't into violence, fine. But when she is needed to step up and be a hero she acts immediately. In the House being bombed scene Ironman gives her his "powers" and she uses them to save him, and then the other woman who was there. No, she doesn't run around and then attacks the helicopters, it isn't who she is and I don't think she would know how... we have established that M42 was not only Glitchy but also not weaponized. So was she a useless innocent? I don't think so. So I want to talk about the final "symbolic" act of violence that was "permitted" to Pepper at the very end... after the main conflict was resolved. Here is Iron Man, sitting on his but, hurt, defenseless and entirely just man. The villain is not completely destroyed, also reduced to his core self... rage/pain. The man is helpless in the face of the rage/pain. He has to be rescued because he does not have a tool in his box to deal with that kind of emotion. This is REALLY important because it ties back to Iron Man's PTSD. This is the symbolic reenactment of him defeating his PTSD by falling into the protection of people who love him. To the rescue, Iron man's Moral campus and the source of his own personal power. Pepper. So Pepper becomes a man and finishes the scene with violence? No. Pepper expresses the full extent of her persona by using her instincts to protect her other half, she didn't save her man from the rage beast with more rage, but with love. Her instinct to protect. And Iron man learns that he doesn't have to be invincible, he can just be a man, because he isn't alone. Because the most difficult things in his life (his trauma) is something that he can face with Pepper. So ya you totally didn't understand Iron Man 3. You have presented what I like to call the "No Win" problem of Feminism. NO WOMAN IS WOMAN ENOUGH. Furiosa to Sarkasian would just be a man with tits, (Ya she's basically said as much)... Sure you approve, but you also showed several really great women action heroes and said, "they are basically guys." OK... Well, Pepper Pots, strong, capable, brave, intelligent, and still very feminine... apparently she is a prop? WTF This is why I can't be a Feminist because if I were a character in a movie, I don't think feminists would consider me a woman. Ultimately my personality would be reduced to an archetype just like you reduced Pepper in order to prove a point. Here, Being a real woman is complicated. I've been a soldier, I can fight, I have been in fights... a shit tone. I have used violence to resolve issues but I am also very protective and loving. I rescue and nurture I am... A Moma Bear. Yay, I am no longer a human being. Yayaya Characters are not real and all that BS. But you select the parts of the Character that support your argument and discard all the parts that don't. I"m Sorry but anyone who insists that they have the right or ability to define who is or is not Fully woman is sexist. You are sexist. Sarkisian is SEXIST. Please stop.
I think you're confusing what are fairly neutral observations for straight criticism. Nowhere in the series did I get the impression that the individual films (like Iron Man 3) are bad or that the archetypes (like the Vasquez or momma bear) are inherently sexist, inhuman or un-womanly. It's the broad collection of these things that supports his thesis; namely that female action archetypes exist to reinforce the masculine/agency feminine/passivity paradigm. It's a more nuanced critique than you're giving it credit for; less "all media is sexist and bad" and more "certain action tropes, even well-meaning ones that appear to empower women can carry their own sexist implications." To use the Pepper Potts example, to say that she exists thematically and narratively to contextualize Tony's own emotional development takes nothing away from how well-written or acted she is. She's objectively a supporting character, and her pain becomes Tony's by proxy. This isn't a criticism or condemnation. It's a basic unit of dramatic structure and it exists irregardless of gender. Films just overwhelmingly prefer to fill her role with a female and Tony's with a male. Her "intrusion" into the masculine world of violence is just that. You can say that Killian's second wind reintroduces the dramatic conflict of his character, but she is still, in the meta-sense being handed the proverbial sword here. This second scene didn't need to be added in. It's tacked on to an already complete action sequence, and this can certainly create the impression that her big moment is something of an afterthought. I'm not saying that she's not a badass in-universe. Just that from a narrative/structural standpoint, she's solving a problem the writers created only a moment before, as if just for her. The ritualistic implications create themselves. Similarly, the Vasquez doesn't need to be "not a real woman." In fact, not a single one of the famine archetypes is by themselves, problematic. It's the sum total of all (and the archetypes that don't exist or aren't as popular) that enforces this idea that a woman's intrusion into the masculine world of violence has to come with some caveat, or justification. It's not terribly often that a woman's pain, agency and value are shown from her own perspective. Really, more of the film clips show are decent enough examples of the type than not. Mad Max is exceptional because it's complexity. There's no one Vasquez, nor a Thelma-Louise style divide between man-women and women-women. Masculine and feminine traits are scattered across the board, with the exception of the antagonistic forces of Immortal Joe which are uniformly (and reductively) masculine.
I understand what you're saying about woman not being "passive" in Fury Road, and how that's different than a lot of depictions of woman in movies from the past; this is a reasonable development in film and the director and script writer did a good job on this. What I always find hard to swallow though is woman warriors. This is not to say that woman can't be tough and resourceful,but watching a movie and seeing a 90 lb woman fighting off two large full grown men is just completely unrealistic. That is not how fights work. Men genetically have dense bones and stronger muscles for the same weight. There is a reason males and females are separated in sports. I believe that if we want to represent femininity and masculinity in a progressive and truthful way, it ought to be done realistically. Collative Learning did a great study of Ripley in Alien as a feminist character. I love to hear your thoughts on it. czcams.com/video/DYk_NTdEXFg/video.html
You can't take about the differences of athleticism in genders as they were strictly biological when you literally have one gender encouraged and expected to excel in physical activity sinve birth while the other is expected to sit at the corner and cheer.
Yeah and Mad Max can beat Furiosa's ass despite having lost a lot of blood and being chained down to Nux. So idk how her only having 1 arm has anything to do with it they were both fighting with handicaps.
For a second there it sounded like you wanted women to be violent and aggressive as like a feminist flex. Then it went from that being sexist in itself. Confusing, yet interesting observations.
How are you meant to make an informed vote without understanding what you are voting for? One of the purposes of analysing media is to understand what media you do want to support, otherwise you're voting blindly, therefore not voting in any meaningful sense. That's not to mention that it helps artists to understand what makes their work better when creating, so we end up with better options to vote between. If you think voting is important then analysis is essential.
@@justtheouch Sure, but I'd rather pay for good movies than pay for movies that are less good that have more women in them. The natural progression of this argument that I always see is 'more women in hollywood' or 'this character trait that works is sexist and wrong and we need to stop doing it' and engineering movies around that sort of thinking never produces good movies.
@@sightseeing7993 You cannot know what is a "good movie" if you refuse to analyse movies to see what makes them good. This series makes it pretty clear that "more women" is not what makes a better film, but better written women that don't rely on lazy tropes do make a film better. You can disagree that writing good characters instead of sexist caricatures makes a film better, but in order to do that you need to engage in film analysis yourself. However you cut it, opening discussion on these things is how we get better movies, mindlessly consuming movies only stagnates the industry.
@@justtheouch Okay. Lets take Halloween. Is Halloween better if, in the original movie, Annie was a fully developed character who acted like a real person, with depth similar to Laurie? Or would that take away the focus of such a tightly written story and confuse everything? My issue is the idea that having tropes in a movie for non-primary characters to fill is a terrible thing.
@@sightseeing7993 If that's your issue, it doesn't make sense in response to a series that explains it is interested in action movie protagonists, i.e. not non primary characters. This is not to mention that characters acting like people rather than objects is in most cases considered to be the essence of good character writing, and that characters don't have to be "deep" to not be tropes. The wives in Fury Road aren't "deep" by any typical metric, but they are characters, not props that look like people. This makes them more interesting as a result, and the movie is better for it.
"Hey Jim, we need to keep the feminists happy."
"Eh, just have the broad bonk the nearly dead villain over the head and smirk at the camera."
"Will do."
This is how I imagine the conversations in Hollywood go down when writing a female character for an action movie.
No its usually more like “don’t let anything happen to a woman ever otherwise we will have a twitter mob at our doorstep”
This reminds me of a sickening argument I've seen misogynists make about Fury Road, (trigger warning for rape) that:
"The wives are spoiled, stupid, ungrateful, and wrong to escape because Joe treated them 'really well.' The wives had it better than anyone else in the movie because they had water, food, safety, medical attention, and tons of books so they had it 'easy' and shouldn't have left."
This is a real argument I've seen more than once (and once was too much already.) Just because the wives had basic needs provided for them, doesn't negate the fact they were being held in a literal prison.
Try using that same line of logic irl, and argue the exact same thing to someone in prison, to slaves in the southern U.S. before the civil war, or to a kidnapping victim:
[Prisoners, slaves, kidnapping victims] are spoiled, stupid, ungrateful, and wrong to escape because [their captor, their owner]
treated them 'really well.' The [prisoners, slaves, kidnapping victims] had [or have] it better than anyone else in the [prison, plantation, basement] because they had water, food, safety, medical attention, and tons of books so they had it 'easy' and shouldn't have left."
"You should be grateful for being forcefully locked up for the rest of your life, even though you havent committed a crime! Be thankful your basic needs are met and that your freedom is taken away from you!"
I mean, besides being held against their will, they *only* have to deal with not having freedom... well that... and the rape. Lots and lots of rape. But I guess the argument I'm referring to (that real life people make, may I remind you) about fictional characters doesn't translate to real life because the violence and rape never happens prisoners nowadays, or happened to slaves, or kidnapping victims... oh wait...
I guarantee the idiots that make this argument have never been raped. A lot of women would rather die than have to live with brutal daily rape for the rest of their lives. Speaking from a survivor's perspective, I'd rather get a bullet to the head.
Not only do you have to endure a living hell, you also have your humanity erased and become nothing more than an object or the equivalent of a "well cared for" dog.
A dog that gets beat by its owner and gets raped. But it's cool because the owner feeds it and gives their dog water, food, and shelter. So if the owner does a beastiality, the dog should suck it up because most dogs have it way worse and get put to sleep.
I'm sorry for the rant but it's absolutely disgusting that real people make this argument about the wives in the film.
This is an opinion I've only ever seen men express and it's usually followed by adding that if they were in the same fictional universe and could become a wife in exchange for the "perks", that they'd "put on a dress with lipstick for Joe, suck his D**k, and let him do whatever else to them."
Even though in that hypothetical situation, they have additional advantages. Biologically, they'd have a better chance at physically overpowering Joe if they wanted to, as he's sickly. But most importantly they'd have a choice to be in Joe's harem or not in the first place. The wives didn't have the luxury of a choice.
Sometimes I wonder why it's so damn difficult for some men to simply view women as human beings.
Question: Don't you think that there would be women who would actually volunteer for the position of breeder in exchange for the perks? That some mothers might even groom their daughters specifically for the job to ensure their safety and security. If not, wtf do you think sugar daddies are?
@nihilismful Nobody said they didn't earn their money. In fact that's exactly what I'm saying, the breeders earn their keep by being useful to the establishment
@nihilismful I'm really sorry that that happened to her. Rape really is the worst thing humans do. But I don't understand how this makes me gross. Context is very important. In any civilization rape is an abhorrent thing. All I'm saying is in a resource scarce situation fertility becomes a marketable asset. By no means should any job be forced onto anyone, but that should not bar us from discussing the merits of the job, however distasteful you find it
👏👏👏[standing ovation]
@@kindbrute4640 If you look hard enough you can find people for anything. Surely out of the billions of people on earth there would always be someone who is okay with doing something ridiculously horrible in exchange for these perks. That doesn't mean anything, though.
As for having no other choice, that doesn't make it less horrible at all. You either die out on the street or get tortured daily. Sure, some people might choose torture or force it upon their loved ones. So what? What point are you trying to make? There is no point in discussing the merits of the job.
I always really loved how the wives *do* stuff in combat. There's something about the kind of teamwork they exhibit together with Furiosa and Max that strikes me as, for lack of a better word, _really cool._
The concept that the innocents who don't fight can have autonomy and actively HELP the fighters is honestly something I've never thought of before. But you're right. The wives don't refuse to fight because they're women or damsels... They've literally never been taught how to. And they actively contribute to change the world around them the best they can despite that. This movie really does have a healthy balance of people/types that you don't see in a lot of action movies. And it's helped to shift my view of characters like the wives a lot. Thank you for that! Wish we saw it in more stories.
‘Servant the same narrative function as a puppy’
Holy shit, that really hit it home
chills. i'm two parts in and i already love this series.
An action movie where people accomplish things by non-violent means, using non-violent skillsets as more than a glorified key or comic relief? Unheard of!
That isn't even an action movie.
I think the Genre you're looking for is called Drama.
@@sightseeing7993 nah
@@ventose7718 no, no, no it could be a strategy-action hybrid movie, using a combination of wit, and power to win against the antagonist.
For example
There're dozens of types of jobs required in a war, most of them aren't about violence, like logistics, healthcare, therapy, and transportation, in most war settings. Having a mixture of these types in a war setting, can be a valid approach, and can make the world feel real. It would still be an action movie, if there're firefights, and glorificaion of violence. There're could tactics involved, convoys , Air drops, nursing, etc. could enhance the action, and give it weight, it wouldn't be a full on power fantasy, since one person alone isn't doing everything, but if the protagonist is doing an important job, and is a core part of the collaboration it could enstill the same feeling. Thus retaining the action movie aspectþ
@@sightseeing7993 Warboy: jumps off a moving vehicle with 2 RPG spears to suicide bomb another moving vehicle.
Idout Chuds: NoT EvEn An AcTIoN MOOOviE!!1!
I think the "damsel in distress" trope, that Anita Sarkeesian (among others) talked about a lot, fits nicely into this one.
Thumbs up for Anita Sarkeesian. That woman is a godsend and we don't deserve her. The amount of shit she had to deal with JUST to get her message across...
Yeaa a lot of bullshit
I didn't expect Fury Road to become one of my favourite movies. I thought it was yet another generic action movie. Boy was I wrong.
You know a violent action movie is good when my mom likes it
Big same. I wasn’t interested after the trailer and thought it would be a generic testosterone filled car fest same old same old. Then the manosphere whining started up and got me interested enough to see why were so many dudes making a fuss and trying to boycott and claim some feminist plot. Was absolutely blown away by the movies visuals and the way it showed so much story in so little words.
@@amandalogan89 so you watched the movie specifically because of the controversy? Is that common? No wonder so many movies are politicized these days
UGHH THAT JOHN WICK SCENE STILL MAKES ME CRY!
My Gods, I hate the word "feisty."
love it that you pointed out the small helpful things, my mom only let me watch raiders of the lost ark as a kid cause she was annoyed that the women in the other indiana jones movies weren't even resourceful
"They don't know how, because they've been locked in a safe."
This may seem trivial compared to the rest of the video, but I just thought I’d say I found it hilarious how when you say ‘deuteragonist’ I hear ‘duderagonist’
Remember that part in James bong specter when the former child prostitute is trotted out in front of bond and the villain in in handcuffs, scotch is balanced on her head, she’s shot (presumably in the face) then bond says a waste of good scotch?
What the FUCK? Was that really in a Bond movie??
Skyfall, not Spectre, but yes.
Plastiware please search wasted scotch sky fall on CZcams I promise it’s real 😩😡
I dont remember the bond movie it was in but the woman it it is completly helpless in the first part and then suddenly she isnt anymore. As if her personality changed in total...
I never saw that as bond saying what he thought, more what he thought the bad dude wanted to hear.
i love your videos, and the touch of putting an epilepsy warning at the start means a lot. thanks very much for thinking of us
3:45 This made me cry. It's so nice to not just be depicted as useless 🥺
Thank you so much for this.
Great metaphor -- women treated as just puppies.
Well people don't feel sorry for men, most that die in action movies are men so you are desensitized to it. So if you want to be reductionist you could say that men are treated as less valuable than puppies. If someone kicks the dude who cares, if someone kicks the dog its evil. ;)
or--puppies are treated as women??
Correction. WHITE women are treated as puppies. Notice how all the examples provided in the women are all white. Black women aren't even afforded that luxury, because in society they aren't even considered as women. Let's not assume that all women experience the same kind of sexism.
hey just starting to watch thought i was going to click out in the first few minutes but just from the intro this is awesome, cant wait to finish the rest and also for the rest of your uploads!
Fantastic and important series. Thanks for your wonderful work.
Your analysis makes me love this movie more.
In the game of patriarchy, the opposing team isn’t women, women are the ball
This is actually really freakin good!
I got suddenly updated of you posting three separate videos? Christmas is early?
God I fucking love you so much. This was probably the only action movie I've ever enjoyed and your dissection makes it even better.
It's like you've only picked movies I haven't seen lmao j/k that's clearly not your fault and despite this you explain things in a way I can understand most concepts without having to sit through dozens of these types of movies.
this is an amazing analysis/exploration.. thank you
This is such a fucking good analysis, I'm floored.
Essentially, "Women in refrigerators"
I remember seeing this movie in theaters and being pleasantly surprised how much character the wives had. Usually you're lucky to get a character like Furiosa as the token main female, a Black Widow-esqe figure, any other women are set dressing. Not here every single woman had her own character, her own story and felt like a rounded person. They were never passive just at different skill levels than other characters. No one is useless or flat.
My favorite line from the movie came from Angharad, "Who killed the world?" That never would have happened in your standard action movie.
"Kick the dog moment"
*sweats in Jojo's Bizarre Adventure*
You know, that Joss Whedon "But youre just a girl" moment is so weird and off-putting.
Like, isnt there something purely unnatural about that reaction coming from a grown man? It feels like something only a movie character who knows they are in a movie and understands a trope is being subverted would say. Like, if that kind of thing happened in real life, I don't think anyone, not even a huge misogynist, would react that way. Its just not how people talk or react or think. When a real-life expectation we have is subverted, we don't voice it that way, nobody does.
Joss Whedon does think himself an awfully clever man.
I agree from a basic standpoint. That is to say without any research I can’t rebuke this in a compelling way. But from what I recall, this episode and season of Buffy was very different in themes and how some characters acted. (I didn’t remember the exchange immediately, but from how Buffy acted I could tell around when this happened). So I can’t say if this part did something for the episode which it very well could have.
FrankieSmileShow I'd like to agree with you that the scenario would seem forced and unlikely, but I've met enough of my fair share (although I wouldn't say it's very common) of guys who have the same gut reaction as the guy in that scene when faced with or the mention of woman capable of holding their own in a fight. They do tend to be a bit more verbose about it. Very depressing to observe.
In terms of just the plot though. Yeah I dislike it when a character says out loud a theme or trope the movie/series is using; really grating.
I'd say specifically for that Buffy scene that Xander *isn't* a grown man... He's a ~14 year old high schooler at the time, which makes the line far more believable to me at least, since saying the first thing that comes to mind in the simplest and most unfiltered fashion is kinda something a lot of teenagers do.
Also, Whedon's obsession with the trope is evidenced by his insistent overuse of it in his later work; I wouldn't necessarily rush to too much criticism of his first use of it when it was a far fresher trope as the best way to criticize the trope. And I think its use in this video has more to do with the former point (distilling the trope to its simplest form) than with the latter point (that it's an egregious or bad use of the trope). Whedon's first use of the trope in 90's TV for teenagers I think is far more excusable than his umpteenth use of it in a big budget movie about super powered beings... 😝
It's offputting as a reaction from an adult man in the year 2010.
However it is a completely natural reaction, the expected one even, from a man in the year 1980.
Want to guess how many times it's actually been said whenever my sister tried to get into sports?
in WHAT universe is ramona flowers an innocent, passive character? weird choice of example there
In that specific moment of the movie she is, IIRC.
scott pilgrim v world was a shitshow
Superb analysis on this movie
That Buffy clip at the 3 minute mark... you cut out the bit that gives the point to the guy saying that. It works on two levels: she just casually saved him from a huge vampire, without breaking a sweat, and he not knowing what a slayer is, who Buffy is, stammers "How do you do that? You're just a girl", as in, you look just like any other girl. Buffy's answer to that is a world-weary "That's what I've been saying", because she's dealing with so many bigger problems right now (carrying an enormous burden in the wake of her mother's death and protecting her 'sister' from a literal hell god who seems unstoppable) that doing away with some run-of-the-mill vampire isn't even worth her full attention at this point. Her reaction to this kid's words in Season 1 or 2 might have been some snarky wise-crack, but at this point, she's just so tired, she dearly wishes she was 'just a girl'. That she didn't have so much power and responsibility, both in her family structure and as a supernatural hero. It's a re-examination of what it means to be this ass-kicking archetype when the real things beating you down are the day to day burdens of living, rather than the easily-dustable hoards of the undead.
So my point is: Joss Whedon is a predictable guy, but Buffy was written with a lot of nuance (by a writing staff that went beyond just Whedon's oversight). I didn't always like her (truly, she grated on me hugely on a regular basis), but I always believed her reactions, she never felt like a tacked on set of faux-minist ideals or a grandstanding anti-archetype. And that clip is kind of proof of that believability, rather than proof of the character's failure.
Wonderful! Tha'ts why Fury Road is one of my favorite movies
You're great. In your effort. I agree and disagree with you to various degrees (jaded by "film theory"). But I always see your effort and logic. Thanks. I'll pay you someday.
I don't think there is anything Fury Road did wrong. I went to the cinema hyped as fuck and was still impressed on the release day
I realize it's important to break the stereotype of a woman being defenseless / passive when confronted with greater violence than they could possibly exert, but I also think it's important to understand most victims of violence end up shutting down in order to protect themselves, that fighting back in any way will only earn them more serious bruises or even death.
"Black widow" yep 2:20
2:33 at least he varies it a bit, I wish Missy acted more like the master
The mistress?
Liked, subscribed
Oh yes times 2.
The measure of a warrior is usually their weight or equipment. There's a reason weight limits exist in fighting tournaments, why the current 90lb MMA/Jiu-jitsu expert meme fails against heavyweight boxers, and why guns have a safety mechanism, and why an AK is likely to beat a 9mm in ranged combat. As someone who's learnt a lot of fighting styles but is permanently DYEL, I learnt this lesson the hard way a few times in my life.
tl;dr - I'd rather fight an 8st man than a 21st woman.
2:23 We should've seen Whedon was a creep and a fake by him adding shots like this to his works
Doyle Harken Shots like what?
So many movies rely heavily on this.
I don't think Point Break is really an example of this because it's making fun of action movies. It's supposed to be a parody, it's just that nobody noticed. It's such a well shot movie that people went "Yeah, surfboarding bank robbers makes sense I guess".
I need to see this now,
Pete Detrick haha yeah I was one of them, too young to notice. I haven't seen it since I was a teen either, maybe worth a rewatch. =)
I think I need to watch Fury Road again.
2/5...!
Dexter season 5
You okay there?
Oh, I'm sure he's better than okay. He just finished putting together an hour-long video essay. I bet he's having a nice, relaxing break right now.
I got the same feeling. Poor IS.
What do you mean?
this comment confuses me.
I know it was to illustrate your point, but the dog scene. 😢
For some reason, this analysis boils my blood
How about an innocent character that becomes violent, but not brutal?
Wtf I thought my dog was hurt
2 shane black movies. hmm.
You forgot children.
Average 2008 Toyota Camry owner
There are dog breeds that are powerful rather than helpless. I'm not sure if I have a bigger point with this, but I'm saying it anyway.
Man *dab*
I have to disagree with you (which I almost never do): the kick the dog moment IS about the dog, for me at least. I don’t give 2 figs about the villain.
If I were in that film: I would risk my life or do whatever it takes so that the dog lives, villain be damned. I love Keanu, been crushing on him since I was a kid and he was in Bill & Ted (and that Paula Abdul music video) - but I still refuse to watch these movies because I cannot handle an animal (especially a dog) suffer in any way, let alone die.
I'm not sure I buy the final statement demarcating rescue and escape in this way. Begging someone to get you out of a citadel seems to be functionally identical to a rescue. None of the rescues displayed in this video would have suddenly become escapes (e.g. The Expendables) if the damsel had propositioned her rescuers first.
I think the idea was that instead of Furiosa coming up to them with an escape plan fully made to rescue them, they came up with the plan themselves and got Furiosa on board as part of it, as in, Furiosa was only part of the plan, and not the sole actor in it
Basically, Women in Refrigerators, yeah?
I appreciate this series and thank you for putting all the work in. I respectfully disagree with some of your later assertions that being a warrior has nothing to do with gender or nature, there are characteristics such as physical size and aggression that men tend towards more strongly than women.
Cameron Miller 3000 years ago in the arctic women were buried with skis and bows. We were hunters and just as badass as men. Oh, also many viking warriors were women. The agression crap is just male mateguarding that became an issue after humans invented farming.
Dark Twisted Lady why do so many anthropologists think that the women used to gather berries while the men hunted? Why then are men possessed of thicker skulls and generally larger and physically stronger than women?
But gender doesn't automatically make someone a warrior, there are plenty of men who are weak and plenty of women who are strong, sure, as a general trend men are usually physically stronger and usually bigger, but plenty of men aren't big and plenty of women are, and as a trend, women tend to be more dexterous and have a higher pain tolerance than men, which are also aspects that are important for a fighter or a hunter. Besides, when it comes to combat, training is much more important than pure size or aggression, most martial arts movies have a scene where a smaller character beats up a much larger one and no one seems to find that odd, because it's assumed that the smaller fighter has the advantage in training. Granted, it is true that more men fight than women, but that could also be due to social gender inequality (Less women soldiers because women couldn't become soldiers until very recently, for example), so in a world like Fury Road, I think it is very plausible for a woman to become a very competent fighter without social influence and with training.
Max The Cat Yes, men do on average build muscle faster than women but again, in a world like Fury Road that doesn’t matter most of the time, and that’s also not always true for every man and every woman. In Fury Road what matters most is training, experience, equipment and tactics, there’s multiple scenes of old women killing younger, stronger men because they have the better aim and shoot them to death, muscle mass has no bearing on that, neither does it matter at all during the multiple car chases, it doesn’t matter how strong you are if your opponent runs you over with a multiple ton car. So saying that who wins in a fight will always be the bigger, stronger guy is wrong, especially in the context of the movie we’re discussing. I even used an example in my previous comment of the trope in martial arts movies where a smaller, less muscle bound fighter will win over their bigger, stronger opponent due to their wits or superior skill, no one bats an eye when both of those fighters are men but because the smaller fighters a women it suddenly becomes unbelievable?
I think the warrior is more symbolic of a certain type of opposing will not necessarily associated with how physically strong you are. Also when you add things like guns and cars into violence it becomes less about brute strength. But yes some movies do tend to unrealistically portray fights between men and women although I don’t see it as an issue because the vast majority of people know basic physical differences between the sexes
Okay I know you said warning of animal violence at the start of part 1, but then part 1 ended and I forgot about it, and part 2 started on the playlist and you warned me about epilepsy coming in the near future but not the heartbreaking sound of a dog in pain and dying?? I'll be honest, I couldn't hear a word you said after that and I had to stop the video and do something else before I was able to focus again and continue enjoying the analysis. It's just... I'm feeling a bit attacked right now. I do wonder if there wasn't another way to open the topic of abused women than with an abused animal. Like... how about just... abused women...?
OK... You wronged Pepper Pots. Pepper is the total source of all of Iron Man's power by the time Iron man 3 happens. She runs his company and provides him with all of his money, Iron Man has 2 superpowers first he is a genius but second, he is fabulously rich, without his riches his genius is quite limited. We even see this as he goes to the hardware store and makes tools that make him viable but not fully Iron Man.
How is she the source of his Genius? Besides providing the funding she also is the only person who can control him, not outright because that isn't really what she wants, but when she points out that his Tinkering is separating him from his own humanity and serving as a distraction from his own trauma she is the only one he listens to. His entire character arch from that point on was defined by what she pointed out to him... where does the man stop and the robot begin?
She isn't into violence, fine. But when she is needed to step up and be a hero she acts immediately. In the House being bombed scene Ironman gives her his "powers" and she uses them to save him, and then the other woman who was there. No, she doesn't run around and then attacks the helicopters, it isn't who she is and I don't think she would know how... we have established that M42 was not only Glitchy but also not weaponized. So was she a useless innocent? I don't think so.
So I want to talk about the final "symbolic" act of violence that was "permitted" to Pepper at the very end... after the main conflict was resolved. Here is Iron Man, sitting on his but, hurt, defenseless and entirely just man. The villain is not completely destroyed, also reduced to his core self... rage/pain.
The man is helpless in the face of the rage/pain. He has to be rescued because he does not have a tool in his box to deal with that kind of emotion. This is REALLY important because it ties back to Iron Man's PTSD.
This is the symbolic reenactment of him defeating his PTSD by falling into the protection of people who love him. To the rescue, Iron man's Moral campus and the source of his own personal power. Pepper. So Pepper becomes a man and finishes the scene with violence?
No. Pepper expresses the full extent of her persona by using her instincts to protect her other half, she didn't save her man from the rage beast with more rage, but with love. Her instinct to protect.
And Iron man learns that he doesn't have to be invincible, he can just be a man, because he isn't alone. Because the most difficult things in his life (his trauma) is something that he can face with Pepper.
So ya you totally didn't understand Iron Man 3.
You have presented what I like to call the "No Win" problem of Feminism.
NO WOMAN IS WOMAN ENOUGH.
Furiosa to Sarkasian would just be a man with tits, (Ya she's basically said as much)... Sure you approve, but you also showed several really great women action heroes and said, "they are basically guys."
OK... Well, Pepper Pots, strong, capable, brave, intelligent, and still very feminine... apparently she is a prop? WTF
This is why I can't be a Feminist because if I were a character in a movie, I don't think feminists would consider me a woman. Ultimately my personality would be reduced to an archetype just like you reduced Pepper in order to prove a point.
Here, Being a real woman is complicated. I've been a soldier, I can fight, I have been in fights... a shit tone. I have used violence to resolve issues but I am also very protective and loving. I rescue and nurture I am... A Moma Bear. Yay, I am no longer a human being.
Yayaya Characters are not real and all that BS. But you select the parts of the Character that support your argument and discard all the parts that don't. I"m Sorry but anyone who insists that they have the right or ability to define who is or is not Fully woman is sexist.
You are sexist. Sarkisian is SEXIST.
Please stop.
I think you're confusing what are fairly neutral observations for straight criticism. Nowhere in the series did I get the impression that the individual films (like Iron Man 3) are bad or that the archetypes (like the Vasquez or momma bear) are inherently sexist, inhuman or un-womanly. It's the broad collection of these things that supports his thesis; namely that female action archetypes exist to reinforce the masculine/agency feminine/passivity paradigm. It's a more nuanced critique than you're giving it credit for; less "all media is sexist and bad" and more "certain action tropes, even well-meaning ones that appear to empower women can carry their own sexist implications."
To use the Pepper Potts example, to say that she exists thematically and narratively to contextualize Tony's own emotional development takes nothing away from how well-written or acted she is. She's objectively a supporting character, and her pain becomes Tony's by proxy. This isn't a criticism or condemnation. It's a basic unit of dramatic structure and it exists irregardless of gender. Films just overwhelmingly prefer to fill her role with a female and Tony's with a male.
Her "intrusion" into the masculine world of violence is just that. You can say that Killian's second wind reintroduces the dramatic conflict of his character, but she is still, in the meta-sense being handed the proverbial sword here. This second scene didn't need to be added in. It's tacked on to an already complete action sequence, and this can certainly create the impression that her big moment is something of an afterthought. I'm not saying that she's not a badass in-universe. Just that from a narrative/structural standpoint, she's solving a problem the writers created only a moment before, as if just for her. The ritualistic implications create themselves.
Similarly, the Vasquez doesn't need to be "not a real woman." In fact, not a single one of the famine archetypes is by themselves, problematic. It's the sum total of all (and the archetypes that don't exist or aren't as popular) that enforces this idea that a woman's intrusion into the masculine world of violence has to come with some caveat, or justification. It's not terribly often that a woman's pain, agency and value are shown from her own perspective. Really, more of the film clips show are decent enough examples of the type than not.
Mad Max is exceptional because it's complexity. There's no one Vasquez, nor a Thelma-Louise style divide between man-women and women-women. Masculine and feminine traits are scattered across the board, with the exception of the antagonistic forces of Immortal Joe which are uniformly (and reductively) masculine.
I understand what you're saying about woman not being "passive" in Fury Road, and how that's different than a lot of depictions of woman in movies from the past; this is a reasonable development in film and the director and script writer did a good job on this.
What I always find hard to swallow though is woman warriors. This is not to say that woman can't be tough and resourceful,but watching a movie and seeing a 90 lb woman fighting off two large full grown men is just completely unrealistic. That is not how fights work. Men genetically have dense bones and stronger muscles for the same weight. There is a reason males and females are separated in sports.
I believe that if we want to represent femininity and masculinity in a progressive and truthful way, it ought to be done realistically. Collative Learning did a great study of Ripley in Alien as a feminist character. I love to hear your thoughts on it. czcams.com/video/DYk_NTdEXFg/video.html
You can't take about the differences of athleticism in genders as they were strictly biological when you literally have one gender encouraged and expected to excel in physical activity sinve birth while the other is expected to sit at the corner and cheer.
@@CrazeeFy I don't get your point, with same training a male will still always be way stronger than a woman... It's just biology.
Yeah and Mad Max can beat Furiosa's ass despite having lost a lot of blood and being chained down to Nux. So idk how her only having 1 arm has anything to do with it they were both fighting with handicaps.
For a second there it sounded like you wanted women to be violent and aggressive as like a feminist flex. Then it went from that being sexist in itself. Confusing, yet interesting observations.
I dont get why we need to analyze and fix these movies that don't have enough women doing the right things. Vote with your wallets.
How are you meant to make an informed vote without understanding what you are voting for? One of the purposes of analysing media is to understand what media you do want to support, otherwise you're voting blindly, therefore not voting in any meaningful sense. That's not to mention that it helps artists to understand what makes their work better when creating, so we end up with better options to vote between. If you think voting is important then analysis is essential.
@@justtheouch Sure, but I'd rather pay for good movies than pay for movies that are less good that have more women in them. The natural progression of this argument that I always see is 'more women in hollywood' or 'this character trait that works is sexist and wrong and we need to stop doing it' and engineering movies around that sort of thinking never produces good movies.
@@sightseeing7993
You cannot know what is a "good movie" if you refuse to analyse movies to see what makes them good. This series makes it pretty clear that "more women" is not what makes a better film, but better written women that don't rely on lazy tropes do make a film better.
You can disagree that writing good characters instead of sexist caricatures makes a film better, but in order to do that you need to engage in film analysis yourself. However you cut it, opening discussion on these things is how we get better movies, mindlessly consuming movies only stagnates the industry.
@@justtheouch Okay. Lets take Halloween. Is Halloween better if, in the original movie, Annie was a fully developed character who acted like a real person, with depth similar to Laurie? Or would that take away the focus of such a tightly written story and confuse everything?
My issue is the idea that having tropes in a movie for non-primary characters to fill is a terrible thing.
@@sightseeing7993
If that's your issue, it doesn't make sense in response to a series that explains it is interested in action movie protagonists, i.e. not non primary characters.
This is not to mention that characters acting like people rather than objects is in most cases considered to be the essence of good character writing, and that characters don't have to be "deep" to not be tropes. The wives in Fury Road aren't "deep" by any typical metric, but they are characters, not props that look like people. This makes them more interesting as a result, and the movie is better for it.
Well, male warriors will always be faster and stronger than female ones, so yeah, there is a very important gendered difference.