Movies and Society

Well, most bad comedies can represent the sheer stupidity that shrouds around the majority of people.

This is an interesting thread. Movies have a tendency to reflect not only what goes on in society, generally, but movies also reflect the time(s) in which they are made.

Societal attitudes, as well as societal realities are often reflected by and in movies.

__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

WSSlover, thank you for your compliment.

Originally Posted by TomNice

Omnizoa, I strongly feel that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” By Beauty I mean very or extremely attractiveness so I don’t go by what you stated is the popular definition. I feel to the extent that the popular definition is accepted it is a result of a cultural bias against male attractiveness. I will continue to use the word beauty as a synonym for very or extremely attractive so every time you see me write beauty substitute that phase.

Alright.

Originally Posted by TomNice

My point was much more that the increase in women to men ratio. I used the Magic Mike movies as one example of the change in the way people perceive the male form. Possibly it is due to a change in the relaxation in repression, rather than an increase in appeal, but being a male I don’t think I can comment on that.

Why not? Just because you're male doesn't mean you can't make an objective observation irrespective of your gender.

Attraction towards a specific sex has always been a thing. I hardly see why it might fluctuate.

Originally Posted by TomNice

Also, I am not claiming that these men are seen as “sexy” men, as being male I feel I cannot comment on how the audience perceived the men only that it shows that the people who went to see the movie wanted to see male bodies.

They're strippers. They exist for no other reason than to titillate.

Originally Posted by TomNice

Again I would like to hear more from women about this.

I would like it if more women would contribute to this discussion and if I am mistaken about who has replied to me I would like someone to correct me.

Better not to assume and approach the topic from a gender-neutral position.

My point is we're making two different points.

Playing Devil's Advocate? I would think that the mere probability is sufficient evidence. You can flip a coin any number of times, but when you stop, you aren't guaranteed to have landed an even number of heads or tails.

You said it would have to be a whole new topic, so I didn't elaborate.

Yoda, I'm agreeing with you. I would be making the same argument you made.

Filmmaking is an extraordinarily complex process that typically involves digging into countless social constructs, not the least of which being the concept of marketing which is a regular tug-of-war between artistic control and focus testing.

How much of an average movie's content are you willing to credit to natural-born instinct or physical aptitude?

The vast majority of movies mimic our world in some way, whether in setting or story, including social constructs like kissing, marriage, school, government, religion, national territories, you name it. They're EVERYWHERE, but they're purely artificial subjects. Movies almost universally encapsulate a story involving conflict in some form. If we're basing our idea for a story on reality, what gender has history shown to be most frequently found in the thick of grand conflict?

Is it really because men are physically better suited to enduring the stress of acting out conflict, or could it be a cycle of discrimination inspiring discrimination?

What, in our genes, could we feasibly use to explain why most directors are men? Why dismiss the long accepted idea that men are the stereotypical breadwinners and are thus far more likely to establish the foundation of new industries? What could feasibly overthrow that age-old monopoly if not social change? We've already observed this social change, so the fact that it threatens an androcentric monopoly implies that it's not just a matter of genetic advantage that keeps men in their positions.

Not the least of which, I see a long long history of sexism that represses and compartmentalizes women away from most fields of work by virtue of sexism that represses and compartmentalizes women away from most fields of work.

By "normal", I mean "average", or alternatively whatever passes for "socially acceptable", which is more than likely what is "average" or "typical". "Atypical" is different and differences are historically discouraged.

I'm not saying anything is more or less "normal" here or there. What is "normal" is what is common NOW.

The keywords here are "natural" and "correct".

I don't. How does "nurture" manifest itself biologically?

As humans? As men or women? Of course.

I acknowledge that nature informs nurture, but it doesn't directly explain modern cultural disparities. Women are as genetically suited to a lower payrate and fewer jobs as Central Americans are geographically suited to illegal immigration.

We're talking about movies. (o__o ) What's biologically inhibiting a woman from being a badass action hero?

I'm sure you get this, but I'm wondering how we got to this point.

I think my analogy still applies.

I totally understand what you're saying, but it's not phrased in a way I can really swing with.

You're referring to gender roles collectively.

I'm referring to gender roles as imposed by modern society, which I feel comprises the vast majority of assumed gender roles.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

I'm not entirely clear on which parts you disagree with, then, but it seems like a big thing to keep unpacking it, so I'm fine leaving it as-is.

If there's any particular part of the discussion you wanted to see through, though, I'm happy to focus on it.

Aaaaartistic merit...?


You know it's an entirely objective observation to recognize that "sex sells". Sex sells because sexual attraction is a historically powerful motivator. Magic Mike is about male strippers, whose jobs revolve entirely around this idea, so it's no big stretch to assume the appeal of their jobs also serves as a major appeal for the audience as well.



It really is no big mystery why a disproportionate amount of women went to see Magic Mike.

It's about as big a mystery as why Megan Fox is seen bending over vehicles in Transformers.


I think we're mostly on the same page. I didn't quite understand you until you said this:

Omnizoa, Yes, Artistic merit could be one the reasons. Sex may sell, but non-sexual beauty could also sell.

We disagree as to the idea of gender-neutral position.

Earlier I wrote that two trends I see in movies are:

Women’s lives are not as interesting as men’s
Men are less beautiful than women are

I see these two trends as flip sides of each other. That is women tend to be in movies because they look good, while men tend to be in movies in order to accomplish something. I’m not saying that this is always the case only that I feel it tends to be. In thinking about this I came up with what to me is an interesting idea for a movie. That is a movie about a women artist and her struggles, disappointment and successes, who depicts beautiful men. This could be a story based on fact or it could be fiction. The 2015 movie “The Danish Girl” might be an example of such a movie. I have only seen the trailer for it, but from that I feel it may not be the best such story. A story which may be better is the life of Lady Elizabeth Butler. She was a British painter who was born Elizabeth Thompson on November 3, 1846. She produced many paintings of solders in war. Perhaps her most well known is “Calling the Roll after an Engagement, Crimea” or “The Role Call” (1874) see here:

https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/405915/the-roll-call

What was important about this work is that it showed the misery and horror of war instead of glorifying war, which I believe was unusual for that time. Elizabeth Butler produced many images of war see here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=lady+elizabeth+butler&biw=1600&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiOjauQ5pj MAhXHoD4KHUM1AWUQ_AUIBigB

In many cases she used actual solders as models for her replications. Thus, here is a talented woman, accomplishing things and leading an interesting life and men being the models, that is the subjects to be looked at.

You're welcome, Tom.

Originally Posted by TomNice

Omnizoa, Yes, Artistic merit could be one the reasons. Sex may sell, but non-sexual beauty could also sell.

That's not what's selling this movie.

Omnizoa, I think a lot of things sell movies and one thing could be non-sexual beauty.

Continuing with the idea of leading women with interesting lives and beautiful men in art:



Go to virtually any Art Museum and you will see only a tiny percentage of works done by female artists. In the past art works were placed in a hierarchy with large historical and allegorical including those having religious or mythological subjects at the top, while at the bottom were still life painting including flower arrangements. The problem this caused for women is that the historical and allegorical works generally contained human figure and in many cases these figures were nude. Now, male artists have long studied from the nude (life classes), including both female and male nudes. This was and is to better depict the nude, but also to better depict the clothed form since it was and is felt that it is important to understand the underlying body. In many cases female artists had difficulty in being able to study the nude. So, women were caught in a bind, to become great they had to paint historical painting, but to do so meant they had to study the nude which many either were restricted from doing so or restricted themselves from doing so.



However, there were some female artists who did depict nudes, both female and male. According to an article written for “The Florentine the English-speaking new magazine in Florence” by Jane Fortune and dated April 22, 2010, the artist Giulia Lama was “. . . the first women known to draw and study the male nude from a live model . . .” One of her male nudes is “Ebbrezza di Noč” (Drunkenness of Noah) see here: http://s018.radikal.ru/i509/1302/06/8b6aee4776ee.jpg



The female artist Angelica Kauffmann born in 1741, she depicted the male nude in her “Amor and Psyche” (1792), http://www.fineart-china.com/upload1/file-admin/images/new16/Angelika%20Kauffmann-653774.jpg

“The Legend of Cupid and Psyche” (1800) http://goddessliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Corbis-EL003823.jpg

and “Diana and Endymion” http://www.ticketsofrussia.com/peterhof/monplimg/m46.jpg



The following is a statement from Laurie Schneider Adams’ book, “A History of Western Art” page 380: “Kauffmann was a member of the Accademia di San Luca in Rome from 1765, but, as a woman, was excluded from figure drawing classes.” Further, in his book “Art, a History of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture” Frederick Hartt writes the following on page 858: “Like other women painters, Kauffmann was forbidden to work from the nude, either male or female, and related that all the life studies she ever made were from models draped by sheets, in the presence of her father.”



An interesting painting is “The Academicians of the Royal Academy” (1771 to 1772). In it there is depicted the 30 or so members of the academy along with models a nude male and a partly nude male. On the wall are portraits of the two female members, Angelica Kauffman and Mary Moser. Now, not all of these men posed at the same time, so it would have been easy to paint the two women in without having to have them present with the naked men. But, it appears that even the suggestion that a women might be present in the same studio as a naked man was to be avoided.


Born in 1775 Angelique Mongez was a female artist who created at least two action packed works containing the male nude. One was the 1806 “Theseus and Pirithous Clearing the Earth of Brigands, Deliver Two Women from the Hands of their Abductors” see here http://www.artsconnected.org/resource/fullImage?id=3934&startat=0&position=undefined and the other was “The Oath of the Seven Against Thebes” (1826).


According to an article in “We news” written by Mary Meier around “. . . 1862 there was a growing demand by women artists for nude male models to improve their anatomical drawings.“ At Boston’s Lowell Institute it was suggested that in the life drawing class female artists would wear veils so that the male models would not recognize them outside of class. This proposal was protested by the artists Edna Dow Cheney and 50 others in the drawing classes. The protestors won and both the female and male artists were equally able to study from the nude body.



Both Dianora Niccolini born in 1936 and Aude Du Pasquier Grall born in 1974 are female photographers who have produced artistic photographs of the male nude. They are not the only ones.



It seems to me that a movie with a female artist who struggles to get known and with young naked male models would present I case where we as the audience can get to see a woman’s hopes, dreams, successes, disappointments, fears, happiness, anger and get to see beautiful males.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.