The discourse surrounding sex scenes in media has risen again and this time to much more of a pushback.
Starting with the origins, who are the people criticising the existence of sex in media and what are their reasons?
From there, what are the arguments against limited sex in media?
What can come from this repetitive discourse and why does it seem to be such an enduring topic for discourse?
My biggest critique of sex in media is that so many of them have minors involved (though played by adults). The confusing thing is that shows like this (Euphoria, Riverdale, you name it) would probably make more since if the characters were in their 20s and in college. Why do they have to be minors? Additionally, having grown adults playing children makes the concept seem fine, thus normalizing sexual content involving minors. – kaitminghui2 years ago
It is also interesting how television and film reviews are impacted based on the type of sex scene featured. The Last Of Us episode 3 was review bombed on IMDB after featuring a gay sex scene despite it being one of the more acclaimed episodes of the series. – mattweightman2 years ago
There is also the issue of exploitative use. For example, the film I Spit on Your Grave has long scenes of sexual violence and is a commercial product. It is important to ask whether a scene is there to communicate something or is just a fetish. – EllenPastorino2 years ago
One of the things that can come from the discourse is the existence of intimacy coordinators and further discutions around best practices for sex scenes. Additionally, the topic is always discussed because, like it or not, people like sex scenes in television and film, they find them entertaining, etc. – Madelinelca2 years ago
Can it or can it not? Or can aspects be objectively bad for a film? Or is it all subjective? This is a neverending debate to some or an easy yes or no for others.
Critics tend to highlight mostly negative aspects of a movie and tend to ignore that there are passionate filmmakers behind these films, while fans are generally too forgiving, or tend to not demand better and just want a good time.
So what makes a movie good or bad, or is it more important how it makes you feel?
This is always going to be a tricky subject. Narrowing the subject matter down more would be better for determining objective good or bad. For example, one could try to objectively qualify the writing of the movie's script, in terms of plot-holes, natural flow of dialogue, or connection strength to presented themes. All of these topics are tricky and still hard to objectively qualify on their own, but it's miles easier than trying to do that AND the various other fields of work that make the film, such as costume design, editing, shot composition, music, etc. – SunGuard152 years ago
There is rich potential in this if objectivity and subjectivity can be adequately explored; one possible starting point would be Karl Popper's 'three worlds' concept which points to the two concepts as separate rather than occupying two ends of the same continuum. Another way into it might be to look into the various flavours of objectivity available (e.g. absolute objectivity, intersubjective consensus). – Jack Walton2 years ago
I think this is a great topic to explore, as it is a never-ending debate among movie enthusiasts.In my opinion, there are definitely objective aspects that can make a movie "bad," such as poor acting, bad cinematography, and a weak plot. However, there are also subjective elements that can affect one's perception of a film, such as personal taste and emotional response. I believe it is important to strike a balance between objective analysis and subjective interpretation when reviewing a movie. While it's important to acknowledge the hard work that goes into making a film, it's equally important to objectively evaluate the technical and creative aspects of the film. I suggest exploring the opinions of both critics and fans in the article, as they often have different perspectives on what makes a movie good or bad. Additionally, it would be interesting to delve into the psychology of why people enjoy certain types of movies, and how that affects their perception of a film's quality. Overall, I think this topic has the potential to spark a thought-provoking conversation among movie lovers, and I look forward to reading the article once it is published. – sheldorzz2 years ago
This is a really great topic to explore and I think there are many different ways to approach this. I think structurally speaking, there are distinctions between a good and bad film, but ultimately how the film makes you feel is what you remember the most. There are many objective analytical techniques you can use to determine the quality of a film, but there are also ways in which you can give a more personal or creative take within a critical analysis, which makes this topic an interesting line to draw upon. – Fasteddieemily222 years ago
The most recent horror film on Hollywood's docket is Prey for the Devil, which concerns Sister Ann. This devout nun wants to be an exorcist and would be great at it, but her training school accepts only men. Yet Sister Ann may be the only one who can help the patients in the school's attached hospital for the possessed, including a ten-year-old girl. The blending of Christianity and horror in this film is by turns respectful to the Church and seems to encourage audiences to explore, if not root for, the demonic.
It's a conundrum found in many similar films, such as The Exorcist and The Nun. The question is why this blend comes up so often, and especially why the Catholic Church is presented on the front lines in this murky battle between good and evil (they aren't always on the "good" side). Are these portrayals as balanced as they could and arguably should be? How can or should horror films stay true to their genre, while portraying Christians or perhaps people of other faiths, as those who would protect or save innocents from the demonic? What do these films say about spiritual battle lines in real life? Discuss.
Midnight Mass is a great miniseries to look at. The show expertly uses Christian/Catholic imagery as a backdrop for its story. Faith and religion are key components of the show. Its an exceptional show for this topic, and a great piece of art generally. – Sean Gadus2 years ago
I think mention of films like the Witch, Saint Maud, and Men could help this topic — their connections to christianity are more textual and less aesthetic. It would also be worthwhile to get a little more specific with the thesis. – loubadun2 years ago
Among the many motifs in Quentin Tarantino’s cinematography, food is one of the most important ones. It has been pointed out that the relation between food and power/domination is key to understanding the functionality of violence in his films. For example, when Jules bites some guy’s hamburger and drinks his soda (“Pulp Fiction”), he does it as a prelude to intimidate and kill. When Hans Landa forces Shosanna Dreyfus to try strudel with a glass of milk (“Inglourious Basterds”), he does it to let her know he knows who she really is. When Beatrix struggles with chopsticks and finally uses her hands to eat (“Kill Bill”), Pai Mei throws her food away and tells her that if she wanted to behave like an animal, she will be treated like an animal. These are just some examples of the many ways food is used to dominate and to impose over someone, and ultimately to exert violence. A study that analyzes this phenomenon in deep using one or two specific examples in Tarantino’s movies is something that has not been done yet. The goal of an article on this subject would be to delve into an aspect of Tarantino’s films that has not been fully explored, but it is evidently important to understand how this director’s mind works.
Tarantino once worked at a video rental store, where he delved into a ton ob obscure and old films. He credits this as a starting point that honed his love for film. In writing this topic, it would likely help to look up some interviews in which Tarantino discusses this. – Ethan Fenwick2 years ago
When writing this, the use of Police Academy is a must to talk about stereotypes and misleading views of police. On the other hand, we shouldn't forget that sometimes stereotypes occur very true-to-life, which in turn can be misleading too. – Christof Claude2 years ago
I have been wanting to write an article about the Japanese movie Helter Skelter by referring to the manga that is based upon it. I decided to submit a topic beforehand to see what the Artifice community thinks about it. This movie is unforgettable because it makes the audience realize how ugly it is to go desperately after physical beauty. It is a great lesson about youth, beauty, self-esteem, and ethics. The article is expected to be about the analysis of the main character Ririko, the way the plot evolves, and how other minor but important characters contribute to delivering the message that obsessively seeking outer beauty is a toxic behavior. Since the movie is about models, focusing on the fashion industry as the concerned context would be appropriate. However, this phenomenon of having certain beauty criteria on social media is becoming a lot more common nowadays and it is causing a lot of mental health issues particularly among teenagers and young adults. Connecting the ideas generated in this film to a real contemporary problem would also be interesting to provide interpretation and discussion of the analysis.
Exactly. I would like to write this topic and I didn't know it is for other users only. So what do I do now? – Malak Cherif3 years ago
I think this idea is great and if you write about this you have a lot of material to collect from. – ImaniX2 years ago
Especially with the change of villains after the 2000s, the history of cinema has gained many cult characters. Joker, Ozymandias, Magneto, Thanos, Bane, and more. These villains, whose sole purpose is not to destroy the world, as before, all have different motivations. All of them have different purposes. They are far from being an ordinary villain, thanks to their delicately written characters like the main character of the movie. For this reason, they have many viewers who see them right and love them. The best example might be the Vikings. Although they were bloody raiders, we had a great time watching them. So how right is it to enjoy it, to support the Joker, to love these villains who are essentially trying to harm? Or trying to break the society we live in?
Still. Out. Of. The. Scope. Of. The. Artifice. – T. Palomino2 years ago
Ignore Palomino. I think this topic becomes more and more relevant as we get more and more complex and interesting villains in media. I think it's perfectly fine to enjoy a character that makes you think and has an impact on you, even if they're what we perceive as "bad." – LeoPanasyuk2 years ago
Many Hallmark holiday movies are considered "bad" because they employ unrealistic, overdone, and exaggerated tropes, characters, plot devices, world-building, and sentimentality. This makes the settings in which they are set in seem like they are trying too hard to look believable. This makes the content fall flat and seem poorly executed. Characters are often underdeveloped as their personalities and histories are not explored much which makes it difficult to be invested in their story. These are just some reasons many consider Hallmark holiday movies to be less successful and impactful.
Explore some of the reasons. Discuss television vs streaming, secularism, commercializations of the holidays, budgets, appeal, genre limitations, reputation, etc.
To quote my mother, "I love watching Hallmark movies because I always know how what's going to happen. They're not stressful." While this may be a pro for my mother, and for many people who enjoy Hallmark movies, it's not considered a pro in the film world. A screenplay should always be surprising but inevitable. Hallmark movies follow a formula down to a tee. The plot points are inevitable, but not surprising. – Abby2 years ago
I would also go into the history of film and television production a bit. I think there's a clear parallel between the way Hallmark movies are viewed today and the way TV movies of the week were viewed by many in the 1970s and '80s — in that networks produced literally hundreds of them every year, and most were not taken too seriously by critics. No different really from the way B-movies were relegated to the bottom half of double bills in the 1930s. Hallmark movies are, in a way, the closest thing there is today to the old Hollywood studio system. – John Wilson2 years ago
In Thor: Love and Thunder, Gorr the God Butcher wanted to destroy all the deities in the MCU. His motivation was he had found the god of his civilization quite disappointing, and he assumed all deities were just as selfish and uncaring. The movie hoped the audience would think Gorr was wrong because Thor, the god of Thunder, is not selfish. Unfortunately, we have not met many other "god" characters in the MCU with redeeming qualities. Analyze the MCU characters referred to as gods or god-like beings – not only the Asgardians but also Dormammu from Dr. Strange, Ego from Guardians of the Galaxy, Arishem from Eternals, the Egyptian gods from Moon Knight, and Zeus. How valid was Gorr's anti-god position? Is there a deeper meaning in this repeated theme? Consider the fact that Odin said, "We are not gods," but other characters nonetheless refer to Asgardians as gods. Does a character need to be chosen by a mortal civilization to "count" as a god?
