(no subject)
Jan. 18th, 2015 09:47 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. One of those days in which I just want to stay home and vegetate. Possibly read. Possibly write. Possibly make chicken soup and coconut cookies. Small wonder - it's cold, it's rainy (actually pouring at the moment), and the everything looks dead and gloomy outside. Yesterday was prettier - crystal blue sky, lots of sun, just cold. If it had chosen to rain yesterday - we'd have had a bit of snow.
Spent most of yesterday at my church working on The Vagina Monologues...we drew pictures of vaginas, discussed how society views the vagina, and did a lot of fun dancing. The dancing was great - I love to dance, and I'm a good dancer, as long as I don't have to memorize any steps, count, or follow a choreographed routine. So basically if you just play cool music and let me move to it - we're set. Regarding the pictures of vaginas? I was going for a picture of a blooming flower, and ended up with a flaming flower and feathers. Art on demand is not exactly my forte.
2. Found THIS on Facebook, regarding the backlash on the Oscar nominations. (It's an embarrassingly white slate this year, and Selma has been fairly ignored, except for a Best Picture nod. No acting nods, and no director nod for a black female director. While lesser films such as Foxcatcher and The Imitation Game picked up various nominations. I haven't seen Foxcatcher or Selma, so can't really comment. Ironically, the Academy has its first black female president this year.)
Oscars Backlash via Think Progress
the Academy she oversees has maintained its traditional makeup; its members are 93 percent white and 76 percent male. Part of the problem, as Boone Isaacs pointed out, is that existing members recruit new ones, meaning they are drawn from overwhelmingly white and male networks.
Yet the people filling the theaters have changed. Most moviegoers are women, while Latinos are one of the fastest growing audiences, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Filmmakers and studios are beginning to realize they can profit from putting more minorities and women on the screen in roles that are not stereotypical or objectified. The Academy, however, hasn’t quite caught up.
It's hard for me to take the Oscars all that seriously for a variety of reasons:
* The people voting on the films haven't watched all of them.
*. It's subjective, hello. People like what they can relate to. If you are a white man which film will you relate to more? Selma or Boyhood? Which will make you happy?
*. Films, books, art is not comparable, it is unique of itself. Ranking it, voting on which one is best..is a momentary thrill telling us what people like in that moment, but often...art, great art, doesn't demonstrate lasting quality or importance until 10-15 years later.
Example? Buffy the Vampire Slayer was never nominated for an Emmy. But roughly ten years after it aired, I'm still thinking about it. It's still being discussed by scholars, and students. And it is still being studied.
And...Peter O'Toole never won an Oscar, outside of Lifetime Achievement, yet...years after, we remember his films.
Although they do have a point, the films Imitation Game and the critically acclaimed, highly touted Boyhood are "white male stories" with no blacks or minorities featured, except possibly in minor roles.
3. Watched Richard Linklater's film Boyhood last night. The film that's been taking the awards and critics by storm. It's notable for how it was filmed. Linklater filmed it over a 12 year period, pulling in the same actors at various times, and snatches, to make it. As a result, we see the actors in all the roles age naturally, no additional makeup or casting changes required. (ie. The kid who plays Mason is the same one from the age of 8 to the age of 20). And the film seemingly takes place in real time.
The story, however, isn't all that interesting or unique. It's about a boy who along with his older sister, is being raised by his divorced Mom, who makes a serious of bad romantic choices, but other than that is a rather good mother and manages to make a good living. My main thought while watching it was - that the main character, Mason, reminds me of my kid brother.
Did like the final statement, which is basically the theme of the film.
Nicole, a young woman that Mason meets on his first day at college, states: "People are always talking about seizing the moment, but actually I think the moment seizes us. That our lives are just a series of moments that have seized us and then pass." (Note - it is stated by a young woman, not a man, and not by Mason. The driving force of the action in the film is interestingly enough not Mason, but the women around him. This reminded me a lot of Neil Gaiman's Ocean at the End of the Lane.)
Other thoughts?
Outside of the "boy", men do not come out well in this film. They tend to be drunken and somewhat irresponsible jerks. Also with a contained violence. There is violence in the film, but it is often lurking beneath the surface - or shown off-screen or on the side-lines. There is a lot of drinking in this film - granted it is suburban Texas and we live in a culture that is a wee bit on the boozy side. The boy doesn't appear to drink that much, though. And through most of the film he seems to be rather reactive - things happen to him, he doesn't propel the action so much as observe it (becomes a rather good photographer). Nor is he violent. And he never gets hit nor do we ever see him in a fight. His mother however does get hit - but it is suggested, not shown. And it's not by him, but by one of her drunken husbands, which results in a divorce and getting her kids out as fast as possible. The boy's sister, Sam, is more active. As stated above, domestic violence is referenced, one of the mother's husbands is an abusive drunk. Actually her first husband, the father portrayed by Ethan Hawk, is the only one who doesn't come across as abusive, he also seems to back away from conflict.
I liked the film. It does play with my head a bit. But it never really connected to my emotions or I never quite connected to it. From a narrative style standpoint - it is rather brilliant. And compelling in places. But, I can't say it's the best film I've seen in years. Maybe this year although I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy more (yes, I know, but there it is)- but I've admittedly not seen that many films this year that are memorable.
Spent most of yesterday at my church working on The Vagina Monologues...we drew pictures of vaginas, discussed how society views the vagina, and did a lot of fun dancing. The dancing was great - I love to dance, and I'm a good dancer, as long as I don't have to memorize any steps, count, or follow a choreographed routine. So basically if you just play cool music and let me move to it - we're set. Regarding the pictures of vaginas? I was going for a picture of a blooming flower, and ended up with a flaming flower and feathers. Art on demand is not exactly my forte.
2. Found THIS on Facebook, regarding the backlash on the Oscar nominations. (It's an embarrassingly white slate this year, and Selma has been fairly ignored, except for a Best Picture nod. No acting nods, and no director nod for a black female director. While lesser films such as Foxcatcher and The Imitation Game picked up various nominations. I haven't seen Foxcatcher or Selma, so can't really comment. Ironically, the Academy has its first black female president this year.)
Oscars Backlash via Think Progress
the Academy she oversees has maintained its traditional makeup; its members are 93 percent white and 76 percent male. Part of the problem, as Boone Isaacs pointed out, is that existing members recruit new ones, meaning they are drawn from overwhelmingly white and male networks.
Yet the people filling the theaters have changed. Most moviegoers are women, while Latinos are one of the fastest growing audiences, according to the Motion Picture Association of America. Filmmakers and studios are beginning to realize they can profit from putting more minorities and women on the screen in roles that are not stereotypical or objectified. The Academy, however, hasn’t quite caught up.
It's hard for me to take the Oscars all that seriously for a variety of reasons:
* The people voting on the films haven't watched all of them.
*. It's subjective, hello. People like what they can relate to. If you are a white man which film will you relate to more? Selma or Boyhood? Which will make you happy?
*. Films, books, art is not comparable, it is unique of itself. Ranking it, voting on which one is best..is a momentary thrill telling us what people like in that moment, but often...art, great art, doesn't demonstrate lasting quality or importance until 10-15 years later.
Example? Buffy the Vampire Slayer was never nominated for an Emmy. But roughly ten years after it aired, I'm still thinking about it. It's still being discussed by scholars, and students. And it is still being studied.
And...Peter O'Toole never won an Oscar, outside of Lifetime Achievement, yet...years after, we remember his films.
Although they do have a point, the films Imitation Game and the critically acclaimed, highly touted Boyhood are "white male stories" with no blacks or minorities featured, except possibly in minor roles.
3. Watched Richard Linklater's film Boyhood last night. The film that's been taking the awards and critics by storm. It's notable for how it was filmed. Linklater filmed it over a 12 year period, pulling in the same actors at various times, and snatches, to make it. As a result, we see the actors in all the roles age naturally, no additional makeup or casting changes required. (ie. The kid who plays Mason is the same one from the age of 8 to the age of 20). And the film seemingly takes place in real time.
The story, however, isn't all that interesting or unique. It's about a boy who along with his older sister, is being raised by his divorced Mom, who makes a serious of bad romantic choices, but other than that is a rather good mother and manages to make a good living. My main thought while watching it was - that the main character, Mason, reminds me of my kid brother.
Did like the final statement, which is basically the theme of the film.
Nicole, a young woman that Mason meets on his first day at college, states: "People are always talking about seizing the moment, but actually I think the moment seizes us. That our lives are just a series of moments that have seized us and then pass." (Note - it is stated by a young woman, not a man, and not by Mason. The driving force of the action in the film is interestingly enough not Mason, but the women around him. This reminded me a lot of Neil Gaiman's Ocean at the End of the Lane.)
Other thoughts?
Outside of the "boy", men do not come out well in this film. They tend to be drunken and somewhat irresponsible jerks. Also with a contained violence. There is violence in the film, but it is often lurking beneath the surface - or shown off-screen or on the side-lines. There is a lot of drinking in this film - granted it is suburban Texas and we live in a culture that is a wee bit on the boozy side. The boy doesn't appear to drink that much, though. And through most of the film he seems to be rather reactive - things happen to him, he doesn't propel the action so much as observe it (becomes a rather good photographer). Nor is he violent. And he never gets hit nor do we ever see him in a fight. His mother however does get hit - but it is suggested, not shown. And it's not by him, but by one of her drunken husbands, which results in a divorce and getting her kids out as fast as possible. The boy's sister, Sam, is more active. As stated above, domestic violence is referenced, one of the mother's husbands is an abusive drunk. Actually her first husband, the father portrayed by Ethan Hawk, is the only one who doesn't come across as abusive, he also seems to back away from conflict.
I liked the film. It does play with my head a bit. But it never really connected to my emotions or I never quite connected to it. From a narrative style standpoint - it is rather brilliant. And compelling in places. But, I can't say it's the best film I've seen in years. Maybe this year although I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy more (yes, I know, but there it is)- but I've admittedly not seen that many films this year that are memorable.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-01-18 02:58 pm (UTC)The fact that he didn't even get a nomination for his role in that movie is pretty much criminal.
But what makes that movie unique, is that for one of the first times, you see the civil rights struggle with MLK as the actual main character. That for the first time really, we get to see it from the pov of the black people involved, instead of like most other movies dealing with the era that still give us a white character's pov.
It's especially annoying since how relevant that struggle is today, keeping Ferguson in mind and all.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-18 03:03 pm (UTC)There was additional backlash over the film - for not featuring LBJ and white activists in more prominent roles. I found that interesting. Meanwhile I just saw the heavily touted film Boyhood, which is white, no blacks and relatively few minorities shown in minor roles.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-18 03:13 pm (UTC)Same with how a conversation with 30% female voices is seen by men as female centric, as if they don't even notice how often white male voices are focused upon, because they are seen as default.
I never felt that the white voices in the movie were downplayed, they were there, they just weren't the focus of the story. And I think that might have scared some people. That you could see an entire room full of black men, talking strategy, without requiring a white voice to speak for them and/or save them.
White audiences are used to seeing the white pov character as the one they identify with, the one who saves the day and tells them they don't have to feel guilty about the bad stuff happening, cause they're one of the good guys, and Selma just refused to give them that character no matter how uncomfortable it might have made said white audience. It did show white people joining the fight, but they did so, because the black heroes of the story were smart enough to get them involved. So instead of becoming the heroes of the story, those white people are the back up, not the main leads of what happened.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-18 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-18 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-18 11:35 pm (UTC)The television series, Empire, has no white pov character, they are either supporting or conflict characters, which makes it somewhat innovative.
And the film The Butler - similarly did not have a white pov character. There is also the Tyler Perry films which don't have white characters in main roles. Shonda Rhimes is slowly pushing more and more female black characters in the protagonist roles - and by doing so, manages to exhibit why it is a good idea and can steal achieve high ratings.
So it is changing. The film Selma, which is actually doing better box office wise than many other films that were nominated - is the latest proof of this.
This is inspiring...because about ten-fifteen years ago? This wasn't the case. Joss Whedon attempted to get a black actress to play Cordelia and was shot down. Now? They would have insisted on it. Progress!
no subject
Date: 2015-01-19 03:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-01-19 03:42 am (UTC)Because seriously, I'm so sick and tired of seeing poc characters pushed aside in fandom, even when they're the more interesting characters in the original medium.
no subject
Date: 2015-01-19 03:05 pm (UTC)It's not as true of the general viewer, just for some reason fans.