|
poptart_fairy posted:My personal opinions about the underwear scene aside, it's kind of hilarious because I've seen people complain about how it's objectifying, etc, in newspapers and online...right next to screenshots specifically taken at the point to show off her body to its fullest extent. Say, heroin. Gatts posted:Threshold as stated. Paris and Janeway go to warp 10, evolve into lizards, mate a few times and have little lizard babies on a planet, then are taken back and reverted to normal and the babies never mentioned again or the event spoken about again. Mister Roboto posted:Even months later, I'm amazed people still keep pointing this out. Was that 3 second shot really that distinctive a moment? Cingulate fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 17:06 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 00:52 |
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:She behaves believably. Marcus is totally aware of Kirk's reputation, and finds him pathetic and not worthy of her time. She gets naked anyways because she wants to. Even worse, they're missing out that the film doesn't develop a romance between them (which would be the usual "pay off" for a scene like that) and Kirk's very specific last line to her: something along the lines of "you are always welcome on this ship, as a crew member, Dr. Marcus."
|
# ? Jun 25, 2013 20:37 |
|
They're totally going to bang next movie. It will happen. Only a director with clout, vision and guts will prevent it from happening. EDIT: Like what's going to happen is that Kirk will lean in to kiss Alice Eve, things will heat up, and then we will cut to the Engine Room where Scotty is literally banging away like a cartoon at a pipe with a wrench yelling and screaming about trying to get the warp engines going. Gatts fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 20:46 |
|
Crappy Jack posted:but it's also super important to remember that Alice Eve the real live person didn't take off her clothes because she thought it would be a really cool way to showcase her character's personality, but because a screenwriter and production team thought "Now would be a good time for this character to take their clothes off for some reason". You don't actually know this. Alice Eve may have had a great deal of input in the construction of that scene. Even if she didn't, she consented to being in the scene, which presumes she was given some sort of character motivation or story explanation. You're version of events is a bit insulting to her actually; it implies that she is shallow or uncritical of her own work as an actress.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2013 22:11 |
|
The scene would've worked just as well if we got a shot of the staring Kirk over Marcus's shoulder or something. Then we could have even watched him cringe or squirm under Marcus's chastisement!
|
# ? Jun 25, 2013 22:17 |
|
"Hey, real women take their clothes off at times" is the funniest defense yet because you never see these movies show characters engaging in other irrelevant daily activities like brushing their teeth or taking a poo poo. But a hot lady changing, yeah, that's essential for verisimilitude. Never change, horndogs.
Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 22:22 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:"Hey, real women take their clothes off at times" is the funniest defense yet because you never see these movies show characters engaging in other irrelevant daily activities like brushing their teeth or taking a poo poo. But a hot lady changing, yeah, that's essential for verisimilitude. Never change, horndogs. I like the posts that don't quote the posts to which they refer because those posts don't exist. People have said that the scene is consistent with Carol Marcus's character and Alice Eve was a conscious participant in the scene. Nothing has been said about verisimilitude.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2013 22:53 |
|
Mainly this:quote:Covering this up with a plot explanation for why women change clothes sometimes would render the scene gratuitous by obfuscating the actual content (Marcus' attack on Kirk's sexism), to make it about dilithium crystals or something (see the ridiculously skeevy decontamination scenes in Enterprise). SMG appears to be saying that since "women changing clothes" is a normal mundane activity, it doesn't need justification, as that would put it on the level of sci-fi canon-wank. Here's the thing: films normally cut out scenes of characters changing, taking shits, napping, and so forth, because they're not normally relevant. It goes without saying that you want to cut the narrative down exclusively to what's valuable to show. The question isn't "What's the wookieepedia plot reason for the character doing this?" The question is "What's the artistic reason for this not being cut like the rest of the implicit changing/making GBS threads/napping scenes?" Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:01 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:
If you actually read SMG's post it would be clear: quote:It's her body and she's not covering up out of modesty or shame. She's not covering up at all (this is crucial). Kirk turns around and she doesn't care, but she still rejects his advances because she simply doesn't like him.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:06 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:SMG appears to be saying that since "women changing clothes" is a normal mundane activity, it doesn't need justification, as that would put it on the level of sci-fi canon-wank. He's not saying that. He's saying that the scene already justifies itself from a character standpoint and any attempt to provide further justification could obfuscate the character development going on in the scene. quote:The question isn't "What's the wookieepedia plot reason for the character doing this?" The question is "What's the artistic reason for this not being cut like the rest of the implicit changing/making GBS threads/napping scenes?" Yes, and for the umpteenth time, the answer is "character development". PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:07 |
|
Fun question: aside from the fact that she's disinterested in Kirk and confident with her body being visible, what are Carol Marcus' most clearly-defined personality traits in this film overall? I don't find that this film has much to say about Marcus at all outside of boner-related contexts. Does she know she can give people boners? Yes. Who gets a boner? Kirk. Does she want the boner in her? No. Terrific. Do we know much else at all? Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:10 |
|
PeterWeller posted:You don't actually know this. Alice Eve may have had a great deal of input in the construction of that scene. Even if she didn't, she consented to being in the scene, which presumes she was given some sort of character motivation or story explanation. You're version of events is a bit insulting to her actually; it implies that she is shallow or uncritical of her own work as an actress. Or, as has been documented as happening in numerous motion pictures, it was implied to her that if she didn't do the scene they would seek out an actress who would be willing to do it, and then she would be out the exposure and money that goes with appearing in a huge budget blockbuster sci-fi franchise film. But no, the up-and-coming young actress appearing in her largest role to date probably really really wanted to have a scene where she appears in her underwear. I mean, if you're gonna start bringing in hypothetical thought processes, I'm probably gonna side with the one that's been demonstrably true for decades. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/25/magazine/the-pressure-to-take-it-off.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:12 |
|
PeterWeller posted:Yes, and for the umpteenth time, the answer is "character development". What does it mean that she's white as milk, blonde hair, in blue satin underwear before a cold blue background, camera looking up to her, lighting and shadows perfectly accentuating her perfect abs, framed between upper leg and face (face and upper leg?) ... the film guys here will know a million times better than me how to talk about this. (This is a sexy pic to me.) Ferrinus posted:The scene would've worked just as well if we got a shot of the staring Kirk over Marcus's shoulder or something. Then we could have even watched him cringe or squirm under Marcus's chastisement! 1. why was this way chosen? 2. what specifically does it mean that this way was chosen? For what it's worth, when I saw Iron Man 3, which I mostly remember as gazing at Gwyneth Paltrow's perfect abs, all I could think was: I bet she has a clause in her contract that allows HER to demand she's shown for at least 10 minutes/film in a tank top, just to let millions of people stare at the stomach she's so proud of. I doubt Alice Eve has such a clause, of course.
|
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:24 |
|
Crappy Jack posted:Or, as has been documented as happening in numerous motion pictures, it was implied to her that if she didn't do the scene they would seek out an actress who would be willing to do it, and then she would be out the exposure and money that goes with appearing in a huge budget blockbuster sci-fi franchise film. But no, the up-and-coming young actress appearing in her largest role to date probably really really wanted to have a scene where she appears in her underwear. I mean, if you're gonna start bringing in hypothetical thought processes, I'm probably gonna side with the one that's been demonstrably true for decades. You miss the point. I'm not the one who started bringing in hypothetical thought processes. You are, and you're making the mistake of saying one (that can be taken as an insult to the actress in question) is definite with no direct evidence. Supercar Gautier posted:Fun question: aside from the fact that she's disinterested in Kirk and confident with her body being visible, what are Carol Marcus' most clearly-defined personality traits in this film overall? She has an ego and sometimes overestimates her own skills. She knows a great deal about advanced weapon systems. While she loves her father, that love does not blind her. Cingulate posted:This is a genuine question, not an argument: how does the specific way the scene was staged, filmed, lit, post-processed, cut, ... contribute to character development? I really can't respond to the compositional questions. They're just outside my area of expertise. What I can say is that her smug "what, have you never seen a beautiful woman before?" expression is at the heart of the characterization going on in the scene. E: And I agree that it's sexy, but nothing says that you can't be sexy and develop character at the same time. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:32 |
|
Why doesn't the camera focus her face then? Possibly together with Kirk's? Why are we at navel level, not at eye level? Again, my point has never been that her not wearing a shirt happens during the course of the movie. It's always been how her being naked was presented. PeterWeller posted:E: And I agree that it's sexy, but nothing says that you can't be sexy and develop character at the same time. Just cause they're nice to look at? Edit: saying it again, the picture is VERY striking. There's a reason it's so present; it's visually stunning. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 25, 2013 |
# ? Jun 25, 2013 23:41 |
|
Cingulate posted:Why doesn't the camera focus her face then? Possibly together with Kirk's? Why are we at navel level, not at eye level? Perhaps her posing is also instrumental. Open arms are usually inviting, but by cocking her shoulders and leaning on one arm, she also appears dismissive. Perhaps we are at navel level to subtly position us as children in some veiled reference to Daniel Marcus and his absence. I really don't feel qualified to make firm claims about the scene's composition.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:03 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Mainly this: SMG (or at least how I'm reading him) isn't talking about why it wasn't cut as some executive decision, but acknowledging that it is there and offering an explanation for what it means in the context of the film. It is an inverse of a depiction of male gaze, as the gaze itself is on the side of the object (as opposed to representing Kirk/the audience's subjective view), Kirk is not able to see the way in which Marcus sees him and an unavoidable schism in his ego is encountered.. This is a deeply anxious moment and not hot and sexy. Danger fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:16 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Here's the thing: films normally cut out scenes of characters changing There are an absolute ton of moments in movie and TV between two characters where one is changing and the other is conversing with them. It isn't even uncommon.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:26 |
|
Danger posted:This is a deeply anxious moment and not hot and sexy. And yet we've got DFu4Ever talking about how the scene enables the audience to appreciate beauty, and how titillation is like adding spice to food- so I'm going to guess the scene didn't cause him to feel "deeply anxious". I'm not trying to hold you to someone else's words (although it can be a little vexing to have to simultaneously argue against contradictory defenses of the scene), but it's a bit bold to claim that the scene was neither used nor responded to in an erotically-charged manner.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:31 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:And yet we've got DFu4Ever talking about how the scene enables the audience to appreciate beauty, and how titillation is like adding spice to food- so I'm going to guess the scene didn't cause him to feel "deeply anxious". My ultimate point is that there is literally nothing exceptional about this scene, and variations of it have been done before numerous times. It has a purpose, but its so common and tame that the entire controversy surrounding it reeks of misguided internet social justice circlejerking. It shouldn't have to be defended, and the reason you are getting multiple explanations from people to justify its existence is because there are a myriad of reasons that perfectly explain why it was done the way it was done and why there is literally nothing wrong with it. EDIT: Are you not entertained??!? DFu4ever fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:40 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:And yet we've got DFu4Ever talking about how the scene enables the audience to appreciate beauty, and how titillation is like adding spice to food- so I'm going to guess the scene didn't cause him to feel "deeply anxious". The fact that people can come up with numerous defenses for the scene is itself an argument in the scene's favor. You say you're not trying to hold him to someone else's words, but you are. You are asking him to reconcile his interpretation with another that he may disagree with, as if this is some zero-sum game and there is only one right answer. If you don't see a point to the scene, but many others do, you should consider concluding that you simply don't see a point to the scene, not that there is no point to the scene.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:43 |
|
PeterWeller posted:The fact that people can come up with numerous defenses for the scene is itself an argument in the scene's favor. You say you're not trying to hold him to someone else's words, but you are. You are asking him to reconcile his interpretation with another that he may disagree with Not at all. I'm asking him to reconcile his statement about how people react to the scene with actual viewers' actual reactions to the scene. That's decidedly not the same thing. I don't believe that quantity of defenses should sway the needle one way or the other if those defenses are contradictory and act in opposition to each other. Frankly, it seems like you guys have just as much to argue with each other about as you do with the critics. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:48 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Not at all. I'm asking him to reconcile his statement about how people react to the scene with actual viewers' actual reactions to the scene. Different people can react in different ways. I don't think he meant that as a definitive statement about everyone's reaction to the scene. It is foolish to presume that any of us are saying our interpretation is the definitive one (except for SMG ). And we could certainly argue amongst ourselves about which interpretation carries the most weight and is the most consistent with the rest of the film and its predecessor(s). But we're busy responding to your non-argument. E: At this point, you have said you don't see a point to the scene, and you have received multiple explanations for why others do a see a point to the scene. You can choose to pick one, synthesize some, or disagree with all, but if you choose the latter, you need to develop some actual counterarguments. Our specific disagreements don't count. E2:VVVVV Fair enough. I'll edit the offending part of the post. My previous edit is a much better explanation of what's happening anyway. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:54 |
|
PeterWeller posted:But instead, we have to keep repeating ourselves to you because despite our explanations of why and how we see a point to the scene, you keep saying "nuh uh". This is not an honest post. I don't believe I've at any point dismissed someone's stance without some effort to engage with it (even if my critique was sometimes a flippant summarization). And how can you be "repeating yourselves" if it's someone different coming up with a different contradictory point every time? quote:You can choose to pick one, synthesize some, or disagree with all, but if you choose the latter, you need to develop some actual counterarguments. I don't think it's remotely accurate to say that this has not been done. Don't pull this poo poo. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 00:57 |
|
Sten Freak posted:He's a bad rear end, but he's flawed, a fighting, drinking, rule-bending, rule-breaking woman banging captain of a space ship. These are not and never have been played as flaws, thank goodness.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:03 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I don't think it's remotely accurate to say that this has not been done. Don't pull this poo poo. On this page, you misinterpreted SMG, asked me a "fun question" and ignored my response, and then asked people to reconcile interpretations that don't need to be reconciled. It was an especially accurate statement.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:05 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Not at all. I'm asking him to reconcile his statement about how people react to the scene with actual viewers' actual reactions to the scene. That's decidedly not the same thing. 'People' and 'actual viewers' are exactly the same thing. There is no difference. The viewers are people, and people all have unique reactions to everything. Unless you are implying that everyone (actual viewers) thinks the scene was terrible, and in that case I'd counter with the fact that I've literally only heard someone bitch about this scene on the internet, and half the time its in the form of a 'not in my Star Treks' argument.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:05 |
|
DFu4ever posted:'People' and 'actual viewers' are exactly the same thing. There is no difference. The viewers are people, and people all have unique reactions to everything. Unless you are implying that everyone (actual viewers) thinks the scene was terrible, and in that case I'd counter with the fact that I've literally only heard someone bitch about this scene on the internet, and half the time its in the form of a 'not in my Star Treks' argument. - SMG claims certain unspecified "people" are confused by their own boners or something and interpret a perfectly innocent scene as erotic - Gautir claims that "people" as in, a lot of them who were watching this film, found the scene erotically charged, for better or worse. I'd like to again note that Lindelof has called the scene "gratuitous", and Abrams had this to say: quote:CONAN: I was quite happy about this scene, there is a scene where Alice eve, Curt gets a quick look at her in her underwear. As for "people": take for example Conan's audience clapping in this interview when they show Alice Eve. So it's not just internet white knights like Gautier and me who'd be doing this annoying nerd dance and whatever. A lot of "people", including Abrams and Lindelof, who, if nothing else, at least are more or less guaranteed to have seen the movie twice or so, think the scene's "gratuitous" or possibly "exploiting". I mean, I'm not super angry at the movie or whatever. I don't think it's, what did you say, quote:My ultimate point is that there is literally nothing exceptional about this scene, and variations of it have been done before numerous times. I'm not even saying it's important, I'm just surprised you'd argue the scene is anything but what it is.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:34 |
|
The filmmakers' intentions behind that short scene is a different question from whether the scene ends up working in a way that is meaningful to the film's themes or characterization. Also you're unlikely to find a mainstream director explaining or defending the subtext of their film in an interview, let alone on a talk show, but that doesn't mean they're not aware of any subtext or that we can't find subtext there.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:43 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:And yet we've got DFu4Ever talking about how the scene enables the audience to appreciate beauty, and how titillation is like adding spice to food- so I'm going to guess the scene didn't cause him to feel "deeply anxious". If you've just found out that people on the internet can ruin something by sexualizing it inappropriately, then I have some very bad news for you! The problem is with these folks and not with the woman's body. Their interpretation of the scene is wrong.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:43 |
|
Lord Krangdar posted:The filmmakers' intentions behind that short scene is a different question from whether the scene ends up working in a way that is meaningful to the film's themes or characterization. Regarding intentions, in the video, Abrams actually says it didn't turn out the way he wanted it to. Which, yeah. He's good at making movies that are good. Doesn't mean he must be good at getting across exactly what he wants. And, really, authorial intent? The guy is rich and creative. He's not necessarily a great social commentator hiding incredible subtext. Now, this may sound incredibly naive, but what is the subtext of the scene? It seems to me all we've been talking about so far is the text. Also, man, can't we have this discussion without accusing each other of being stupid or blind or sexist (or racist) every step?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:50 |
|
Abrams or Lindelhof's interpretations aren't exactly relevant to what visual metaphor the film is presenting. Discussion of whether they hit their mark or edited it incorrectly or whatever is tangential at best. Discussing the 'text' of the film inherently includes a discussion (whether acknowledged or not) of the subtext. They aren't separate or on different levels; subtext isn't ever hidden. The discussion here on sexism, couched as male gaze, is exactly opposite of what is actually occurring in the film.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:59 |
|
Cingulate posted:I'm just surprised you'd argue the scene is anything but what it is. A scene consistent with the styling of Abrams' Trek movies so far? I'd ask a better question..."Is the scene gratuitous to the Abrams era Star Trek?" The answer should be a resounding 'no'. The scene would be gratuitous in Downton Abbey. It is not gratuitous in JJTrek.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:59 |
|
DFu4ever posted:'People' and 'actual viewers' are exactly the same thing. There is no difference. The viewers are people, and people all have unique reactions to everything. Unless you are implying that everyone (actual viewers) thinks the scene was terrible, and in that case I'd counter with the fact that I've literally only heard someone bitch about this scene on the internet, and half the time its in the form of a 'not in my Star Treks' argument. Rest assured, I'm treating "people" and "viewers" as synonymous in that post. I'm not sure you read it right. Danger posted about how the scene affects viewers, and I cited you as an example of an actual viewer who (by your own testimony) was not affected in the way that he described. PeterWeller posted:On this page, you misinterpreted SMG, asked me a "fun question" and ignored my response, and then asked people to reconcile interpretations that don't need to be reconciled. It was an especially accurate statement. I was engaging with what I genuinely (if perhaps inaccurately) understood SMG to be saying. I'm sorry that I overlooked your response to my question. However, I will note that of the traits you mentioned, all would be more relevant to present to the audience, and yet all are represented less emphatically than Marcus' complicated relationship with Kirkboner. This is an almost pathological habit in Hollywood; a female character's sexual status and positioning relative to the male protagonist is almost always treated as the most important thing to develop about her character- even if it has no bearing on any other aspect of the film. The scene is a vestigial limb and the "development" goes nowhere, and for that reason it rings false. And again, I did not ask anyone to reconcile their disparate intepretations. At no point did this happen. I expressed frustration at the logistical difficulty of taking on several of these incompatible stances at once, and the dishonesty of pretending that these stances somehow support each other by virtue of their quantity. In fact, you yourself suggested synthesizing some of these separate arguments, and boy, you don't really want me to do that! Because then I really would be holding folks to other people's words. I'd have to conclude that the scene is simultaneously about admonishing and mocking Kirk for seeking sexual gratification from Marcus [SMG, Danger] while also providing that same gratification to the (assumed to be exclusively male) audience [DFu4Ever], elevating the viewer as possessing a privilege to leer that diegetic characters do not. Why, that would render the scene completely disingenuous, as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, as Whedonesque. Supercar Gautier fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 01:59 |
|
Cingulate posted:I'm not talking about their (Abrams & Lindelof) intent, but about their interpretation/impression. I didn't highlight what he wanted to do with the scene, but what it looks like to him now. I didn't say anything about him being "a great social commentator hiding incredible subtext", not sure where you got that from. We could get into a whole thing about the value of the "death of the author" approach here, but for now let's just say that: a) a director's intended outcome for a film and b) the end result of everyone's work (not just the directors) being watched and "read" or interpreted by a viewer are two different things. I'm concerned with the latter, and so are the explanations for the scene's role in the film that have been given by myself and other posters in this thread. Now, when interpreting Abrams' and Lindelof's statements about that scene remember to keep the context in mind, especially their audiences at the time. One was addressing a talk show audience, the other a mob of angry commenters on Twitter. Neither situation is preferable for launching into a discussion about the subtext of the scene, "great social commentary incredible subtext" or otherwise. quote:Also, man, can't we have this discussion without accusing each other of being stupid or blind or sexist (or racist) every step? That's not directed at me, right?
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 02:01 |
|
Cingulate posted:Now, this may sound incredibly naive, but what is the subtext of the scene? It seems to me all we've been talking about so far is the text. Distinction between subtext and text would be a fruitless discussion so I'm going to dodge that, but here are a few previous posts defending the value of the scene to the film: Lord Krangdar posted:We already know that Kirk is a bit of a womanizer, but that scene shows that a) he's not particularly good at it, b) he's not always respectful about it, and c) he doesn't handle himself around women like TOS's Kirk would. It develops her by showing that she has no interest in being another one of TOS's softly-focused conquests for the Captain to bed and then forget by the next episode. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The scene has in obvious purpose, in that Kirk is pushed to stop objectifying women. SuperMechagodzilla posted:She behaves believably. Marcus is totally aware of Kirk's reputation, and finds him pathetic and not worthy of her time. She gets naked anyways because she wants to. Danger posted:SMG (or at least how I'm reading him) isn't talking about why it wasn't cut as some executive decision, but acknowledging that it is there and offering an explanation for what it means in the context of the film. It is an inverse of a depiction of male gaze, as the gaze itself is on the side of the object (as opposed to representing Kirk/the audience's subjective view), Kirk is not able to see the way in which Marcus sees him and an unavoidable schism in his ego is encountered.. This is a deeply anxious moment and not hot and sexy.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 02:10 |
|
penismightier posted:These are not and never have been played as flaws, thank goodness. I'd say Kirk's fighting has never ended up well for him.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 02:12 |
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That's not directed at me, right? Lord Krangdar posted:I didn't say anything about him being "a great social commentator hiding incredible subtext", not sure where you got that from. We could get into a whole thing about the value of the "death of the author" approach here, but for now let's just say that: Intuitively, I'd say: to most people, it was a focus on sexy naked chick striking a pose, and they'd remember it either as sexy, or, less commonly, as sexist. (Me, I'm in Camp Both.) In a critical debate, okay, I'm probably not good at this ... the scene presents a woman who is subjected to the male gaze (embodied by both Kirk and the camera) and confidently stands up to it. The viewer likely identifies with Kirk staring at her lingerie, and Alice's defiance is directed at him, too. She's shining white in front of cold blue metal; her statue-like pose, her perfectly toned body are contrasted with a surrounding offering no shelter, only emphasising her stentorian stance. How controversial is any of this? Danger posted:Abrams or Lindelhof's interpretations aren't exactly relevant to what visual metaphor the film is presenting. Discussion of whether they hit their mark or edited it incorrectly or whatever is tangential at best. Discussing the 'text' of the film inherently includes a discussion (whether acknowledged or not) of the subtext. They aren't separate or on different levels; subtext isn't ever hidden. The discussion here on sexism, couched as male gaze, is exactly opposite of what is actually occurring in the film.
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 02:14 |
|
computer parts posted:I'd say Kirk's fighting has never ended up well for him. Lord Krangdar posted:Distinction between subtext and text would be a fruitless discussion so I'm going to dodge that, but here are a few previous posts defending the value of the scene to the film:
|
# ? Jun 26, 2013 02:17 |
|
|
# ? May 10, 2024 00:52 |
|
Supercar Gautier posted:I was engaging with what I genuinely (if perhaps inaccurately) understood SMG to be saying. Fair enough. To me it read like you were deliberately misinterpreting him to get in another dig at "horn dogs". quote:I'm sorry that I overlooked your response to my question. However, I will note that of the traits you mentioned, all would be more relevant to present to the audience, and yet all are represented less emphatically than Marcus' complicated relationship with Kirkboner. This is an almost pathological habit in Hollywood; a female character's sexual status and positioning relative to the male protagonist is almost always treated as the most important thing to develop about her character- even if it has no bearing on any other aspect of the film. The scene is a vestigial limb and the "development" goes nowhere, and for that reason it rings false. I'm not sure they are represented less emphatically than her relationship with Kirk. I felt her insulted banter with Spock was quite emphatic as well as the presentation of her relationship with Admiral Marcus. I remember an entire scene where her calm and intelligence prevent McCoy from blowing up the pair of them. I'd also disagree about the development going nowhere. Let's not pretend this is a singular work that exists in narrative vacuum. It is part of a series. It will contain scenes that set up later parts of that series. It only takes a cursory knowledge of these characters' histories to understand what this scene is developing. And it does have a payoff in this film too: when Kirk welcomes as part of his crew. quote:And again, I did not ask anyone to reconcile their disparate intepretations. At no point did this happen. I expressed frustration at the logistical difficulty of taking on several of these incompatible stances at once, and the dishonesty of pretending that these stances somehow support each other. Okay fine, but that means you were being literal and obtuse. And yes, I suggested that you could try to synthesize their disparate interpretations because you if you found neither of them convincing. I presume they find their own interpretations convincing and don't need to do that. quote:Why, I'd have to conclude that the scene is simultaneously about admonishing and mocking Kirk for seeking sexual gratification from Marcus [SMG, Danger] while also providing that same gratification to the (assumed to be exclusively male) audience [DFu4Ever]. Why, that would render the scene completely disingenuous, as sincere gratuitousness masquerading as ironic/satirical gratuitousness, as Whedonesque. And isn't this a whole lot more interesting and worthy of discussion than "the scene is pointless." I kinda like the idea that the film tried to have its cake and eat it too. It speaks to the inherent paradox and difficulty in an industry dominated by white men trying to deal with race and gender issues and jives well with Abrams' conclusion regarding the scene. I'd only disagree as far as calling the scene disingenuous, and say it was poorly framed and thus flawed ironic gratuitousness instead. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jun 26, 2013 |
# ? Jun 26, 2013 02:26 |