In different genres of modern day films genders are constantly being stereotyped. For example, In superhero movies the superhero is always a man who ends up saving the woman; who ends up falling for him. Is it necessary for this aspect of a film to occur or would it be beneficial for the film industry to break through these stereotypes?
Perhaps gender roles are defined, and in some cases, meant to be broken. Rather than denying the presence of stereotypes in films/movies/comics/etc...maybe we should embrace them or create more of an awareness around thinking critically about our roles and the reality/unreality of what is being portrayed on TV and in what we read. Because let's face it - there is nothing sexy or "real" about women playing the role of a bulky superhero saving the day or a male in distress. Maybe women's strengths can be highlighted or showcased in a different way. I challenge you to consider the ways in which women do contribute strength in ways that are different then men, rather than assuming we are "victims" of gender stereotypes. – Erica9 years ago
The creators will want to be careful to avoid (unless done intentionally) switching the gender roles in such a way to seem like a "fish out of water" story. While they have their place, they do not serve to change gender dynamics. As an example, the upcoming female Ghostbusters seems to do this by switching the gender of almost all of the characters, but is most prominent with Chris Hemsworth as the secretary; Hemsworth, a notable action star, is not expected to serve as a traditionally feminine career path. This isn't bad, but by making it a joke by casting against expectations lowers the impact of having a male secretary. – nsnow9 years ago
To Erica:
I think that is exactly what the author is addressing as gender stereotyping.
Saying that a woman playing a role of a superhero saving the day isn't "real" is pretty much where the problem lies. What is "real" about a male superhero saving the day? I don't live in America but I haven't yet heard about a Spiderman weaving webs in New York, a Batman fighting crazy villains in some dark city or Superman flying around, haha. So a male superhero is just as fictional as a female one, pardon me. And there is nothing sexy about a female superhero? Just ask someone of the male(and female too by the way) reading comics audience about their opinion on that part... Furthermore, there ARE men in distress, just the way there are women in distress because basically every human being is entitled to have feelings like sorrow, pain and anxiety. So please don't take them the right to feel sad and weak sometimes when things are all wrong. This wouldn't make them less men. It is how we handle things, not how we feel about them. As wise people say, courage is not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. Also, the idea of women's strengths vs men's strengths is just deepening the gender stereotyping, do you realize it? Oh yeah, of course, men are strong and protective and women are nurturing and emotionally wise (or whatever). And everybody please act according to their gender prescription!
I challenge you to give me an example how Mary Jane from Spiderman or the heroine of Katie Holms in Batman Begins are contributing strength. And by the way, I think the author has given an arbitrary example with the superhero movies: it goes for both sexes. Women are just as "victims" to gender stereotypes as men are. The only difference is maybe that men most frequently get to be represented as more (stronger, cleverer, braver etc - which is not bad after all. As human beings we instinctively look for role models), while women as less (stronger, cleverer, braver etc). That's why you would more often meet complaints about the gender stereotyping in terms of female representation. – kt0399 years ago
And just so that I answer to the original post: yes, I do believe that film industry should break through these stereotypes. I cannot say whether it would be beneficial for it but it would be definitely beneficial for society on the whole, as movies have evolved to be such an integral part of life for the modern person. Basically, I think the principle is the following: Tell boys it's ok and manly to cry and they'll cry. Tell girls it's ok and womanly to fight and they'll fight. – kt0399 years ago
To say that gender stereotyping is a positive is an incorrect pronouncement. Generally when one looks at gender stereotyping in film, it is women in very one-dimensional and generally unflattering roles. It is important that films take general feminine characteristics are treat them as being just as positive and powerful as men's. But it is crucial that women are given the opportunity to be in leading roles which allow them to be complex characters. – Sdlove9 years ago
When it comes to the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, are the techniques used to develop the plot potentially hiding the protagonists' fantastical identities from the rest of humanity? Also, is there a significance of diegetic and non-diegetic sounds that help explain how the characters identities are hidden throughout the series?
I don't see the relation between keeping the fantastic world hidden from "the rest of humanity" and the use of the techniques to develop the plot. Also, how does this relate in any way to diegetic and non-diegetic sounds? – T. Palomino2 years ago
You're talking about the movies, aren't you? Otherwise, how will sound be a factor to analyze in the books? – T. Palomino2 years ago
At this point in Marvel's plethora of movies, most fans who have been there in phase 1 and 2 know how the movies are in terms of plot, character, dialogue, and action. In these aspects Age of Ultron fit right into the molds of the expected, so why the huge backlash from the fan base toward the director, Joss Whedon? Are people tired of the circular character development, sexist treatment of the female characters, repetitive plots, and the sacrifice of meaningful dialogue for action-packed sequences? If so, what will this mean for the future phase of marvel movies?
I think a major issue with Age of Ultron is that it not only sacrificed meaningful dialogue for action-packed sequences, but it also sacrificed meaningful dialogue for the sake of comedy. When I watched it, I felt like half of the dialogue was one-liners and it started to get annoying (see the "language" joke about Captain America - how many times was that referred to in the movie?). Additionally, it felt like it was trying to stuff too many plots into one movie. A handful of different romances, Ultron, Vision, Scarlet Witch and whatever her brother is named, the fight between the team, shoving in the Infinity Stones (which felt like it was just there to make Guardians of the Galaxy relevant - I don't know much about the Marvel canon) and so on. There was a lot going on and a lot of new characters and it was too much for one movie. Felt like instead of going with a few really solid plotlines, they went with a lot of mediocre ones. – Grace Maich9 years ago
People forget that superhero movies by and large are intended to be CGI eye candy and fangasmic popcorn movies, not Palme d'Or winners. Marvel goes for the lowest common denominator, marketing to kids so that they nag their parents to take them to see it twice. If they featured high-brow plotlines and whatnot then the audience comprised mostly of teenage boys would not understand it. Can we really hold Marvel in contempt for giving their target audience exactly what they want? I don't necessarily think that adults should watch Marvel movies expecting to be intellectually stimulated. If you want an intelligent superhero movie then see Watchmen. If you want intense fighting watch Kick-Ass. If you want to have a dark laugh then give Super a try. Also, I think its worth mentioning that Joss Whedon has a dual degree in Feminist/Gender Studies AND Film from Wesleyan, a historically uber-liberal school. – BriceBlaise9 years ago
I think it was a combination of all the questions you've asked as well as the fact the The Avengers are supposed to be a team and what we've gotten is two movies where they barely are one. – Amna Siddiqui9 years ago
With his latest film 'Youth', Sorrentino has once again impressed with his mastery of the camera, his unique sense of the image and the way he uses the visual to capture human emotions at its core.
It would be interesting to have a look at his film career and compare his films. What defines him as a director? What defines his style? What is it that appeals to audiences? What differentiates him from other directors?
Back in 2012, I heard at one point that there were talks about making a "Skyrim" movie, back when the game had been out for about a month or so. The talks didn't last long. But, a big-budget, or even a small-budget film about "Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" would still be exciting, and there are plenty of reasons why it could not only have a strong narrative, but a great cast, stunning visuals, and plenty of room to expand to sequels.
However, there is one glaring problem with the prospect of a "Skyrim" movie getting produced: who should play the Dragonborn?
Since you are free to choose not only your race but your gender when you start the game, how would you go about choosing the in-universe race and gender for the character, and then how would you choose the real actor to portray that character? Should you choose to cast a female actor in the role, in order to avoid a backlash from fans of the game who played through it as a female? Or should you cast a male, as the developers had clearly done for the cover art, posters, trailers, and the live-action teaser?
It's a very tough question to answer, and one that could come up when dealing with a movie version of any RPG video game that includes a character creation system.
There are still doubts in the industry as to whether or not movies based on games can ever be any good. I personally think they can, since plenty of games have strong stories, deep in-universe histories, and engaging characters. It's just a matter of getting the right director and the right amount of studio support. Picking the right game to adapt isn't a bad idea either. So there are still chances for some RPG's to be brought to the movie screen. And I'm curious to see if someone out there has a solution to this sort of predicament, or at least some good options.
Should RPG's with character creation systems just not get their own movie adaptation based on principle? Or, if they do, is there a way to handle it where both male and female fans can be pleased with who portrays the main protagonist?
I like the idea of this topic but I don't know if it should be a yes/no answer. I think it may be easier to write this topic if you weigh the ability of such games to be turned into movies. Instead of should it be made into a movie maybe it should be asked "how" will this game be turned into a movie. This way there is more to grab onto and write about. But I think this is a really interesting topic given the state of both games and movies today – DClarke9 years ago
That's precisely why I'm bringing it up, and why I asked the last question. This topic can and likely should be tackled the first of those two ways, just like you proposed. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
And yes, I agree that someone should find the best way to approach it from a angle that does not end with a yes or no. – Jonathan Leiter9 years ago
Films, or any other work, really, that pull the "love conquers all" card. I hear disdain from people about this trope, while I personally don't think it's that egregious. Interstellar is one that caught a lot of flak for this, at least in the forums I frequent. Are there films that do it "right"? Which films are the worst perpetrators?
It's totally hokey, but I find the trope warming. I loved the book and film adaptation of Warm Bodies for this sort of tongue-in-cheek portrayal of "love conquers all"-even death! – FrankiHanke9 years ago
I agree; while it can be a bit cheesy in some films, there are certainly quite a few movies that pull it off quite well. My personal favorite would be The Princess Bride; it even includes the line "death cannot stop true love" in the film itself. – TheAverageAssassin9 years ago
I think there is a lot of philosophical backing for this trope especially from the Western Christian tradition. It really depends on how well it is done and if they can make it believable. – DClarke9 years ago
The phrase "one hit wonders" is often used to describe a band or singer who achieved only one Billboard hit in their musical career. Does this phenomenon occur in the film industry? Are there any directors who have only had one successful film over the course of their career (and the director is likely known solely for that movie)? Or is the idea of "one hit wonders" not applicable for the film genre? If so, why?
One director that comes to mind is Neil Blomkamp. He directed District 9, and It was a phenomenal sci-fi movie because the story was clever and new. Then he directed Elysium, which was not necessarily bad, but it was just a water downed version of District 9. And then he Directed this years film Chappie, and that was hated by most audiences and critics. Elysium and Chappie are tonally just repeats of what made District 9 so good, and that is never a good sign for a director. – Aaron Hatch9 years ago
"One hit wonder" is a term used in the music industry, so why not film? I think the idea of a movie one hit wonder is absolutely applicable. One such director who fits the bill is Ruben Fleischer, who after directing the wildly successful Zombieland in 2009, regressed in his next two features: the Jesse Eisenberg-starring environmental terrorism dark comedy 30 Minutes or Less, and the and the expensive ensemble Gangster Squad in 2013. The self-referential, meta-genre aspect that made Zombieland so great with both critics and the box office was left behind. That being said, there is potentially a Zombieland 2 on the horizon, so maybe he will return to form. – BriceBlaise9 years ago
Josh Trank. Loved Chronicle, which did well and made a good deal of money, especially considering he had a low budget. But then he flopped HARD with Fant4stic, and his behavior on set and in Twitter are not good signs at all. M. Night Shyamalan might also be a good example because he has a much larger film base. Most people and critics loved Sixth Sense, Signs was generally well received as was Unbreakable, but all of his other attempts at films have been disastrous. – nsnow9 years ago
In recent years, black and white movies have become largely a thing of the past. Is their death except as art-house fare a death to be lamented? What do black and white movies bring to the experience of movie-going that color films do not? In this sense, is it defensible, for example, to say that LA Confidential is a film noir and not a film couleur?
Films such as "Raging Bull" and "Sin City" that utilize black and white as well as color within the film itself would be interesting to touch upon. That the interplay between black and white with color has become intrinsically stylized and a recognizable trope for cinema. – 50caliburlexicon9 years ago
Black and white film is often mixed with colour film to indicate a flashback or change of setting. – Mrainey9 years ago
Black and white adds authenticity to a film and allows your other senses to be more active. – siarakainth9 years ago
Kat Coiro has an interesting take on this topic. If you can get your hands on a copy of her film, And While We Were Here, you can watch the film in both color and b&w. The department I work in hosted an event and she came and spoke about filming for a b&w edit vs. a color. I believe some of that information can be found online and in the special features. Gives a great voice to b&w filmmaking in the 21st century, why its growing more difficult to do, and why the industry has disowned it. – LukeRMcLaughlin9 years ago
Obviously, b&w films are nostalgic of an era gone by. Nowadays, like you said, filming in b&w is used as an artistic technique. In "Wings of Desire," the characters (angels) can only see in b&w until they become human. Color represents life and vitality. Likewise, Spielberg claimed that the little girl's red coat in Schindler's List (the only instance of color in a b&w film) was used to highlight this tragic, enormous event happening in plain sight that no one reacted to. Despite all this, I don't see the industry producing solely b&w films anytime soon. It has value, but more in the sense of being a technique than a mode of film itself. – Christina Legler9 years ago
Also add ‘Memento’ and ‘The Artist’ in your analysis. What did they achieve by using black and white that could not have been achieved by using colour? – Dr. Vishnu Unnithan4 years ago
