Last film you watched and your rating

Yea, I don’t know if it was intentional but the line about ‘I could be one pool party at Polanskis away from a major movie role!’ (Owtte) seemed pretty weird given that that’s exactly what happened to that 13 year old girl he raped.

Preezy wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, the majority of violence across Taratinos films is probably pretty gender neutral in terms of body count, but the women do seem to get a pretty rough deal when it comes to long drawn out scenes of violence.

Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience? The general population has been conditioned for the last 60+ years to become desensitised to violence against men in movies, so seeing a guy get tortured, shot, stabbed, burned, exploded, eaten by a bear or beaten to death is just another guy dying in a film. But if it's a women, well that's a bit more exotic and not something you see with any great regularity.

No.

Preezy wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, the majority of violence across Taratinos films is probably pretty gender neutral in terms of body count, but the women do seem to get a pretty rough deal when it comes to long drawn out scenes of violence.

Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience? The general population has been conditioned for the last 60+ years to become desensitised to violence against men in movies, so seeing a guy get tortured, shot, stabbed, burned, exploded, eaten by a bear or beaten to death is just another guy dying in a film. But if it's a women, well that's a bit more exotic and not something you see with any great regularity.

I just don't buy that it's some hexagonal conspiracy for misogynists.

Yea probably. I don’t think QT’s playing patriarchal 4D chess either, but the idea that violence against men is standard and normal and violence against women is novel and exotic is... is...

I mean wow, what a strawberry floating can of worms that is. And misogyny/patriarchy theory does underpin a lot of it. Again, not saying that QT is masterbating furiously at the thought of dismembering his female stars (definitely not NOT saying that tho), but the idea of violence against women being a source of shock value in movies is a hell of a rabbit hole.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, the majority of violence across Taratinos films is probably pretty gender neutral in terms of body count, but the women do seem to get a pretty rough deal when it comes to long drawn out scenes of violence.

Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience? The general population has been conditioned for the last 60+ years to become desensitised to violence against men in movies, so seeing a guy get tortured, shot, stabbed, burned, exploded, eaten by a bear or beaten to death is just another guy dying in a film. But if it's a women, well that's a bit more exotic and not something you see with any great regularity.

No.

Says...you? I'm making the argument, therefore it is of infinite strength

What Skarjo said, basically. It's an argument, but it's a deeply concerning one that doesn't really warrant any debate in the same way global warming debate doesn't. One side is wrong or at the very least its implications are straight grotty.

Tafdolphin wrote:What Skarjo said, basically. It's an argument, but it's a deeply concerning one that doesn't really warrant any debate in the same way global warming debate doesn't. One side is wrong or at the very least its implications are straight grotty.

Hang on, I'm not saying that I think violence against women in films is exotic (although it definitely isn't the norm in most films, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation), I'm saying that maybe just maybe that's why directors/producers/writers put that sort of stuff in films because it makes the end product stand out in the crowd a bit more.

Is it controversial to say that we're all desensitised to a degree when it comes to violence against men, but not women? I thought that was a pretty solid point, guess not

And just decreeing that something doesn't warrant any debate is so strawberry floating condescending. Christ Taf, I know you don't mean to, but you're doing it again

I would be academically interested to see results of research on audience response to violent imagery involving men vs women because, entirely divorced from the whys or wherefores of it and the fact that it isn't a great thing to be leaning on, I imagine you would find that more people are upset, shocked or otherwise impacted by the latter.

I know (or hoped) you didn't personally ascribe to it but, let's face it, it's an argument that seeks to explain (and therefore legitimise) extended violence against women in film. To me, that argument is utterly meritless as there is no explaining that phenomenon in a rational manner.

I too do not believe Tarantino is a women hating monster. I just think his films have extended scenes of violence against women in them, and that trying to rationalise this through exoticisation is a dangerous place to go.

How can he hate women?

His mums one.

Victor Mildew wrote:How can he hate women?

His mums one.

My wife is one too though so that does even it out a bit.

@Taf - whatever, dude, I was just interested in looking at the reasons behind this stuff (as Jenuall alluded to, there's probably some academic/anthropological merit to looking at this stuff) but then you go and throw in made up Welsh words like exoticisation and my eyes just glaze over.

But you were suggesting that exotic nature of violence against women was a possible reason, made consciously, for its inclusion, not as the rationale behind the shock one feels when viewing it. There's an extremely important distinction to be made between the two.

Skarjo wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, the majority of violence across Taratinos films is probably pretty gender neutral in terms of body count, but the women do seem to get a pretty rough deal when it comes to long drawn out scenes of violence.

Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience? The general population has been conditioned for the last 60+ years to become desensitised to violence against men in movies, so seeing a guy get tortured, shot, stabbed, burned, exploded, eaten by a bear or beaten to death is just another guy dying in a film. But if it's a women, well that's a bit more exotic and not something you see with any great regularity.

I just don't buy that it's some hexagonal conspiracy for misogynists.

Yea probably. I don’t think QT’s playing patriarchal 4D chess either, but the idea that violence against men is standard and normal and violence against women is novel and exotic is... is...

I mean wow, what a strawberry floating can of worms that is. And misogyny/patriarchy theory does underpin a lot of it. Again, not saying that QT is masterbating furiously at the thought of dismembering his female stars (definitely not NOT saying that tho), but the idea of violence against women being a source of shock value in movies is a hell of a rabbit hole.

I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu, you've lifted some of that from a Guardian article that came out at the time of the film's release haven't you?

Also, let’s not forget that the welsh word for microwave is Popty Ping.

That’s a much better made up word.

Rocsteady wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, the majority of violence across Taratinos films is probably pretty gender neutral in terms of body count, but the women do seem to get a pretty rough deal when it comes to long drawn out scenes of violence.

Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience? The general population has been conditioned for the last 60+ years to become desensitised to violence against men in movies, so seeing a guy get tortured, shot, stabbed, burned, exploded, eaten by a bear or beaten to death is just another guy dying in a film. But if it's a women, well that's a bit more exotic and not something you see with any great regularity.

I just don't buy that it's some hexagonal conspiracy for misogynists.

Yea probably. I don’t think QT’s playing patriarchal 4D chess either, but the idea that violence against men is standard and normal and violence against women is novel and exotic is... is...

I mean wow, what a strawberry floating can of worms that is. And misogyny/patriarchy theory does underpin a lot of it. Again, not saying that QT is masterbating furiously at the thought of dismembering his female stars (definitely not NOT saying that tho), but the idea of violence against women being a source of shock value in movies is a hell of a rabbit hole.

I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu, you've lifted some of that from a Guardian article that came out at the time of the film's release haven't you?

I genuinely have not.

But I also don’t think that my views are particularly unique or insightful so I’m probably not the first to say it.

EDIT; but if the phrase you recognise is ‘4D patriarchal chess’ then I think I might be in a scene from the Twilight Zone.

Skarjo wrote:

Rocsteady wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Skarjo wrote:Yea, the majority of violence across Taratinos films is probably pretty gender neutral in terms of body count, but the women do seem to get a pretty rough deal when it comes to long drawn out scenes of violence.

Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience? The general population has been conditioned for the last 60+ years to become desensitised to violence against men in movies, so seeing a guy get tortured, shot, stabbed, burned, exploded, eaten by a bear or beaten to death is just another guy dying in a film. But if it's a women, well that's a bit more exotic and not something you see with any great regularity.

I just don't buy that it's some hexagonal conspiracy for misogynists.

Yea probably. I don’t think QT’s playing patriarchal 4D chess either, but the idea that violence against men is standard and normal and violence against women is novel and exotic is... is...

I mean wow, what a strawberry floating can of worms that is. And misogyny/patriarchy theory does underpin a lot of it. Again, not saying that QT is masterbating furiously at the thought of dismembering his female stars (definitely not NOT saying that tho), but the idea of violence against women being a source of shock value in movies is a hell of a rabbit hole.

I'm getting a strong sense of deja vu, you've lifted some of that from a Guardian article that came out at the time of the film's release haven't you?

I genuinely have not.

But I also don’t think that my views are particularly unique or insightful so I’m probably not the first to say it.

EDIT; but if the phrase you recognise is ‘4D patriarchal chess’ then I think I might be in a scene from the Twilight Zone.

I think it's the not NOT bit.

No one is ever going to categorically say that Quentin Tarantino doesn’t masterbate over the idea of brutally executing any woman with feet.

You have to play the odds.

Tafdolphin wrote:But you were suggesting that exotic nature of violence against women was a possible reason, made consciously, for its inclusion, not as the rationale behind the shock one feels when viewing it. There's an extremely important distinction to be made between the two.

It's probably obvious that I'm not as au fait with this sort of stuff as you are so you'll have to cut me some slack when it comes to explaining things. What is the distinction and why is it so important?

Also just to clarify when I used the term "exotic" I was simply meaning "not the norm", as opposed to anything sexual, lustful or attractive. Maybe that's where the confusion lies?

I'm saying (I think ) (1) that maybe QT puts in scenes of violence against women because it's a bit more shocking for the audience and (2) I think it's more shocking because we as an audience are not as used to seeing violence against women.

What have I said that is wrong there?

I can’t believe how angrily you two are agreeing with each other.

EDIT; Albear

Preezy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:But you were suggesting that exotic nature of violence against women was a possible reason, made consciously, for its inclusion, not as the rationale behind the shock one feels when viewing it. There's an extremely important distinction to be made between the two.

It's probably obvious that I'm not as au fait with this sort of stuff as you are so you'll have to cut me some slack when it comes to explaining things. What is the distinction and why is it so important?

Also just to clarify when I used the term "exotic" I was simply meaning "not the norm", as opposed to anything sexual, lustful or attractive. Maybe that's where the confusion lies?

I'm saying (I think ) (1) that maybe QT puts in scenes of violence against women because it's a bit more shocking for the audience and (2) I think it's more shocking because we as an audience are not as used to seeing violence against women.

What have I said that is wrong there?

So this was the start of your initial post, highlight mine, obvs:

Preezy wrote:Isn't there a strong argument that this is done simply because it's more shocking for the audience?

So this is suggesting there's an argument that putting violence against women in movies is specifically done to cause shock due to its exotic nature. I saw this as a sidestepping of the fact, a "oh but they do it because of this" type attempt to undersell the issue.

The second point is the fact people react more strongly to violence against women in films because it's more exotic is different to this given it's a reaction and not an intent.

That's it. You were, I think, wrong to suggest there's a strong argument that violence against women is specifically added to movies to increase shock value (Tarantino films at least), but it is probably accurate that people react to violence against women more as it is seen as taboo.