Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

bloodknife.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 699 posts

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#531

Post by ghaff »

hnmullany wrote: post #524
ghaff wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always skeptical about claims that $MOVIE couldn't be made today that was made in a past decade. Lolita's title character was 3-4 years older than the character in the book in both films. Pretty Baby was very controversial when it came out. (ADDED: And I'd entertain the thought that it might be even harder to make today/be even more controversial.Might be more like HBO material.) Nymphomaniac is a European art fi…

And most of Nymphomaniac is very very boring

I did say it was a European art house film :-) I'm pretty sure I never got all the way through the first one.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#532

Post by airhead969 »

pjc50 wrote: post #382
throwaway8581 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sex is not harmless. While it is one of the great human joys, it is also the source of some of our deepest despairs, intractable conflicts, and personal tragedies. This free-for-all free love ethic that you celebrate, which erased almost all of the previous social restrictions on sex, inevitably created the discontent that boiled over into the #metoo phenomenon. It is also fueling the growing incel phenomenon. It is…

Be very clear on this: before #metoo and the modern era, rape still happened. It's just that it was such a reputation death sentence to mention it that few victims did. Partly because people like you would blame the victim.

Rape and racism don't go away because of a social movement.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#533

Post by TheRealDunkirk »

ikurei wrote: post #431
injidup wrote: post #322

Seriously? Selective sampling and click bait. Two recent programs come to mind and I'm sure this list is not exhaustive. "The boys" and "Orville". Both chock full of "heroes" who in-between being heroes are preoccupied with banging each other, getting drunk, eating or failing themselves. The last episode of "The Boys" ends with Homelander jerking off while perched on a ledge over the city and raging at the unfairness…

As others said, I think you're being selective. The article focuses on mainstream action movies. The boys has had great success but still has orders of mangnitude less cultural impact than the MCU for instance. It's actually making, to some extent, the same point the article is making: super hero movies are bland and childish. I didn't even know what Orville is, sounds interesting. I'd say the _slice of current cinem…

> The boys has had great success but still has orders of mangnitude less cultural impact than the MCU for instance. It's actually making, to some extent, the same point the article is making: super hero movies are bland and childish.

I would think the approach would garner a little more sympathy in a forum populated by a lot people who work for companies that exist solely to divine a specific, incremental slice of human desire, and architect vast amounts of human capital to create an app to fulfill it, and make stupid amounts of money in the process. The people behind the MCU laugh at the notion that they have made a "bland" or "sexless" or product, all the way to bank, with TRAIN LOADS of money.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#534

Post by knorker »

This is not unexpected. The UK banned gym commercials for daring to suggest that one may be improving the body in order to be "beach ready" (i.e. show off sexiness). No no no, it is not allowed to say that you try to look better for other people.

As for movies, of course we want to look at beautiful people.

I'll just leave that hanging there for a few seconds. It really should be that simple.

So movies need to show the beautiful people, but they can't "objectify" them. But that's not the same thing. A movie will catch shit for one when they've done the other, though.

Which of Lost in Translation and Batman (1989) caught heat for objectifying women? Which one had a 2D damsel in distress, and which showed off more body?

So you make movies with beautiful people (because that's what people want, all else being equal), but you only put the sexiness "on display", and don't acknowledge it in any way what so ever. Because acknowledging that there such a thing as sexy, or sexual attraction, is harassment.

If you acknowledge it, it has to be made a joke, and as nonsexual as possible. E.g. it's only the men who get to compliment Captain America's ass. It can't be sexual, because the men who said it have an established history of not-gays (a female partner).

But again, back to the beautiful sexy people. Should we be surprised that actors have been wearing wigs (or wig-like fillers) since the days of black&white? Should we be surprised that people want to look at post-hairplug Elon Musk instead of pre-hairplug?

"Fetishize" the body? Wat? It's a fetish to be attracted to "beautiful people" now?

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#535

Post by Cthulhu_ »

airhead969 wrote: post #325

Fuck all that mass-media social programming propaganda. Murder and violence are "okay," while sex and sexuality are "bad." I'll walk around naked, look at women, and hookup whenever I damn well please. Sex is awesome, bodies are beautiful, and no shame is necessary for either. Films that cannot be made in modern America: - Laura, les ombres de l'été (1979) - Lolita (either) - Pretty Baby (1978) - Caligula (1979) - Ro…

> Partially, there is great sanitization of Western films to be accepted by foreign censors.

It's min/maxing, optimizing for the biggest revenue, and it's paying massive dividends. Film projects produce record breaking amounts of revenue. If a blockbuster film passes the Chinese censors (and/or is made with Chinese cooperation), it will produce hundreds of millions more in revenue.

But that's the blockbusters. At the same time, the movie industry is booming with independent and original films. Joker is one example, it's not a Hollywood blockbuster, it's not 'sexy', there's no overblown action scenes, it's not targeting a PG-13 audience (it's an R rated film), and yet it still broke all records, earning over a billion in revenue with at a 55-70 million budget.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#536

Post by Cthulhu_ »

airhead969 wrote: post #519
pascalmahe wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Galahad scene about the Castle of Anthrax? The animated butts in the transitions?

Chinese censors don't allow gratuitous sex or sensuality.

American pearl-clutchers can't deal with it either.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#537

Post by Cthulhu_ »

airhead969 wrote: post #526
JimBlackwood wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids don’t know if something is good, bad, weird or whatever until they’re told. If you are fine not wearing clothes, and do it in your home, your kids wont think anything of it.

Yes. Kids are taught to be ashamed of their bodies by their parents and society. And then teenagers are taught to be ashamed of sex. Some societies inculcate even more shame than others.

It's one tactic to try and avoid them 'accidentally' having sex at a young age (and getting pregnant and everything). I can kind of see everything, I mean on the one side sex ed is important, but if they can avoid attempting it for a few years until they're more well-rounded individuals it'll be a double bonus.

Mind you, I've very much been a late bloomer so my perspective is probably not representative.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#538

Post by mensetmanusman »

Robotbeat wrote: post #169
mensetmanusman wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. There have been about 60 million abortions since then in the US which don’t get counted in the fertility rate.

US abortion rate is now lower than it was before Roe vs Wade and fertility rate has been dropping in tandem with the dropping abortion rate, so I don't think that explains it.

Not necessarily, morning after pills and IUD-induced abortions are not counted.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#539

Post by blacksqr »

aksss wrote: post #331
blacksqr wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clinton and Obama were the only presidents to lower the deficit in the last 50 years. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fac...

Yeah, but that happened with the other party controlling the purse strings, in both cases, who were voted in as a reaction to those administrations with financial mandates.

Both Clinton and Obama inherited a recession from their Republican predecessors, and were punished for the unforgivable sin of responding appropriately.

Re: Modern action films fetishize the body even as they desexualize it

#540

Post by Uwqye2134trf »

throwaway72h9a wrote: post #522
Uwqye2134trf wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can get sick after eating wrong food, due to chemical or bacterial contamination. Where do you think this is more likely to happen: in a restaurant with professional staff that feeds 100 people every day, or on a picnic without professional catering? I think escorts are safer than casual sex, their job is at stake.

The analogy doesn't make sense cause people aren't served the same food. Whereas a prostitute is reusing her body. I agree sex workers are more likely to take precautions but alas just because of having multiple sex partners they are more likely to suffer from various STIs. As I said earlier wearing a condom doesn't save you from a variety of infections. So just having sex with multiple partners increases your risk o…

> people aren't served the same food

The contamination is unlikely to come from raw food itself, chefs at restaurants are buying from the same retail channels as the rest of the people.

The source of contamination can be improper storage or handling, kitchen equipment, dishes and cutlery, people doing all the above. All these things are reused in restaurants.

> twice as likely to be diagnosed with chlamydia

See the table on page 347. For chlamydia, "period prevalence" figure is 10.1% for sex workers, 8.5% for other female attendees. That's 20% difference, not twice as likely.

Compensating for demographics factors is hard. You can surely compensate for the factor "young", can probably compensate for the factor "single", but how would you compensate for the factor "promiscuous", i.e. likely to go out and have casual sex? Because that's the demographic group people gonna sleep with, instead of sex workers.

Post reply on HN