Apparently, saying “Sati and Jauhar were horrific practices” is now interpreted as insulting the women who endured them. No. The women aren’t the problem. The practice is. The patriarchy surrounding it is. The glorification of it is. This really isn’t complicated.
hey so the male gaze is about how film and other visual media cultures assume their average audience member is a straight man and therefore frame female characters as sex objects or maternal figures with little in between it’s not about what kind of pretty someone is
WHO WANTS A LETTERBOXD PATRON? 😋
feeling a bit generous so WHY NOT?
rules:
- must be following me
- rt this post and reply with ur fav 4!
THATS IT, the giveaway closes april 15th <3
I fully believe “separate the art from the artist” is only applicable when said artist is either dead or financially removed from their art.
You can’t act neutral when you’re literally lining their pockets by supporting their work.
why do some of you talk as if there aren’t rich and well considered feminist theories about why gratuitous depictions of sexual assault in film is detrimental to women’s well-being?
Joan Crawford and Bette Davis hated each other so much that Joan stuffed her pockets with rocks in this dragging scene from What Ever Happened to Baby Jane, forcing Davis to drag her again and again while the director reset the shot.
this is why i can't stand emerald fennell, she positions herself as this audacious transgressive filmmaker but all of the 'shocking' moments are ultimately in service of conservative messages like 'poor people are scheming deviants' and 'what if women were into being abused?'
When I hear the phrase “lacking coverage”, I think of Billy Wilder famously refusing to shoot coverage, because coverage was what the studio used when they wanted to screw him.
Coverage makes hacking up a piece of media in the editting room a lot easier.