Swedish Cinemas Launch New Film Rating for Female Representation - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pelican;42783986]criticism for the sake of criticism is about as useful and relevant as a decomposing bird[/QUOTE] just because you don't understand the purpose of critique or agree with the criticisms being made, doesn't mean it's "criticism for the sake of criticism"

[QUOTE=thisispain;42784044]i dont know what that means[/QUOTE] that's probably one of the most simple concepts, I'm not even surprised you don't understand it [QUOTE=yawmwen;42784070]just because you don't understand the purpose of critique or agree with the criticisms being made, doesn't mean it's "criticism for the sake of criticism"[/QUOTE] uh I'm pretty sure it is, in fact I am fairly sure it is. please tell me why the piece of criticism is at all relevant in any way? even thisispain said before (who was quoting the dumbest person alive), 'even if something passes the <whatever> test, it can still be sexist'

[QUOTE=Hellsten;42781956]There are usually more women in dramas/comedies though, but they are not as common as action/adventure films when it comes to cinemas, because they lack the cinematic effects that usually is a big part of watching films at cinemas today.[/QUOTE] Gravity would like to have a word with you.

[QUOTE=Pelican;42784077]that's probably one of the most simple concepts, I'm not even surprised you don't understand it[/QUOTE] if its so simple you should have no problems explaining it

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;42784084]Gravity would like to have a word with you.[/QUOTE] Which is one of the reasons it was so refreshing, but Gravity is unique, and most hit movies in the box office aren't.

at least be intellectually honest and say that you don't agree with the criticisms rather than trying to marginalize them. what you are doing is just insulating yourself from criticisms of culture and media that you might enjoy which is sorta close-minded and shows a lack of confidence in your own beliefs.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;42784110]at least be intellectually honest and say that you don't agree with the criticisms rather than trying to marginalize them. what you are doing is just insulating yourself from criticisms of culture and media that you might enjoy which is sorta close-minded and shows a lack of confidence in your own beliefs.[/QUOTE] What I think is confusing is the line between artistic criticisms and moral/social justice criticisms.

[QUOTE=Pelican;42784077]uh I'm pretty sure it is, in fact I am fairly sure it is. please tell me why the piece of criticism is at all relevant in any way? even thisispain said before (who was quoting the dumbest person alive), 'even if something passes the <whatever> test, it can still be sexist'[/QUOTE] that doesn't mean the bechdel test is a "criticism for the sake of criticism". the bechdel test isn't an end-all for analyzing sexist themes in a movie but it is a start at trying to create better tools for analysis and critique, and it also helps identify trends. [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mbbird;42784144]What I think is confusing is the line between artistic criticisms and moral/social justice criticisms.[/QUOTE] artistic criticism and moral criticism are often related. for example, using racist or sexist "tropes" in storytelling is not only a perpetuation of inequality in society(a moral criticism), but it also indicative of low creativity and laziness on the part of the artist(an artistic criticism). basically artistic criticism is how unique, creative, thought-provoking, and effective a piece is at putting forth a message or emotion(if applicable to the piece). moral criticism is whether you agree with the messages or concepts put forward through the piece(whether they were intentional messages or not). idk i don't really find it that confusing.

[QUOTE=Mbbird;42784144]What I think is confusing is the line between artistic criticisms and moral/social justice criticisms.[/QUOTE] i don't understand this conception either. art and aesthetics have always been connected with what is considered moral (social justice is a meaningless term in academia). the inventors of aesthetics, the greeks, felt that a piece of art succeeded more if it mirrored greek conceptions of beauty and morality. the chinese felt that the sign of good art was that it returned humanity to its essence. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Medevila;42784189]Like I totally get the Bechdel test, and representation of the genders in media is extremely skewed, but it's a cultural problem and you shouldn't be dictating how people create to reach some quota [editline]7th November 2013[/editline] I want my movie to be full of dicks then so be it[/QUOTE] culture dictates how people create and critics analyse it, not the other way around

[QUOTE=Medevila;42784189]Like I totally get the Bechdel test, and representation of the genders in media is extremely skewed, but it's a cultural problem and you shouldn't be dictating how people create to reach some quota[/QUOTE] most people probably don't realize that they are under-representing a group through their work. it's an accident. the bechdel test is therefore useful as a general memo to an artist that says "hey, idk if you intended this or not, but women aren't really well represented in your film. it may not be applicable to your specific film but if it was unintentional and applicable it might be nice to see more women who aren't put in the shadow of men next time". it could allow the writers to notice things that they might have been doing that they don't really want to do and then change it. seriously guys, if you understand the potentials and limitations of what the bechdel test can do then it's adequate. if you expect anything unrealistic of course it's going to look like a bunch of nonsense.

[QUOTE=thisispain;42784217]i don't understand this conception either. art and aesthetics have always been connected with what is considered moral (social justice is a meaningless term in academia). the inventors of aesthetics, the greeks, felt that a piece of art succeeded more if it mirrored greek conceptions of beauty and morality. the chinese felt that the sign of good art was that it returned humanity to its essence. [/QUOTE] I don't know what you mean by social justice being meaningless there, but I agree for the most part (although not in so articulate a manner). That doesn't mean it isn't confusing, especially when we have this party setup to exclusively attack moral issues. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] Yeah I don't mean to imply that they are separate entities, but this rating is set up to specifically distinguish between the two as though there were a line between them.

[QUOTE=Pelican;42783775]totally not surprise this is in Sweden, this test literally does nothing but give feminists the chance to call sexism[/QUOTE] Well this is the country that did try to ban urinals for being sexist.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42783471]It objectifies strippers and the world treats them like a commodity? Sexism in a game like Saints Row shouldn't even be something people care about.[/QUOTE] I see that you aren't 'sex positive'.

social justice isn't a term used in academia, if you used the word in critical analysis youd be laughed at. the point of the bechdel test and such is to illustrate why the question of gender bias is important. if woman are 51% of the population yet they get represented differently in media it raises questions. this whole idea about social justice or what [i]should[/i] be is irrelevant because the bechdel test is clearly concerned about what [i]is[/i] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem[/url]

[QUOTE=Pelican;42783986]criticism for the sake of criticism is about as useful and relevant as a decomposing bird[/QUOTE] if "there were literally no good female characters in this movie" is bad criticism, then what's good criticism?

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42784324]if "there were literally no good female characters in this movie" is bad criticism, then what's good criticism?[/QUOTE] Maybe this isn't supposed to criticize individual movies? "There are no women in this set of movies, writers should give women more and larger roles in film" is a far more reasonable statement than "Your movie is bad because it has no women leads in it".

[QUOTE=thisispain;42784089]if its so simple you should have no problems explaining it[/QUOTE] poorly written pornos can pass this test. alternatively, a movie with no female characters doesn't immediately mean it's sexist, yet it wouldn't pass this test. therefore the poorly written story would have no need to change since it passed the test, while a well written story with no female characters would be criticized for lacking something that defeats the purpose of the film.

Arwen(Elrond's Daughter), Galadriel (Lady of Lothorien), Eowyn(Chick who fucks the Witch King's shit up/Theoden's daughter), Morwen (One who sends her kids off to Edoras after her town is invaded), A fuckton of Hobbit ladies. Lord of the Rings has a shit-ton of influence from women (Though two of the main ones are Aragorn's love interests.)

[QUOTE=lxmach1;42784352]poorly written pornos can pass this test. alternatively, a movie with no female characters doesn't immediately mean it's sexist, yet it wouldn't pass this test. therefore the poorly written story would have no need to change since it passed the test, while a well written story with no female characters would be criticized for lacking something that defeats the purpose of the film.[/QUOTE] what is considered "poorly written" is of no consequence to this test and this is still not explaining what "criticism for the sake of criticism" means.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42784324]if "there were literally no good female characters in this movie" is bad criticism, then what's good criticism?[/QUOTE] good criticism would be criticising plot holes or things that made no sense, quite the no brainer also this is subjective, max talked about gravity having a lead female role: sandra bullock's character in gravity was simply AWFUL - the film was also terrible due to this reason, but it wasn't due to her gender, clooney could've had her role and it still would've been rubbish

[QUOTE=thisispain;42784420]and this is still not explaining what "criticism for the sake of criticism" means.[/QUOTE] Criticism for no reason other than cause an argument and play devil's advocate. Stop being thick.

in all fairness, there are only 2 chicks in star wars and they are only ever on screen at the same time in for like 5 seconds in the last movie, the new movies are fairly similar too

If you look around, it seems like most sites say somewhere around half of most movies pass the test. In other words, the representation of women in movies [i]in general[/i] is fairly poor. I think this is the most revealing use of the test. I think, depending on the film, the test might be useful in certain situations on an individual basis. For example, if a culture made of a typical proportion of men and women is visibly featured in your film (as in the main characters aren't the only ones on screen the whole time) and it still fails the test, you should take that into consideration.

[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42784464]Criticism for no reason other than cause an argument and play devil's advocate. Stop being thick.[/QUOTE] well the point of criticism is to cause an argument. argument and discourse is the entire reason philosophy exists. read the writings of greek philosophers. they argue, that's what they do. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] how am i being thick when im asking the meaning of what someone is saying rofl

[QUOTE=thisispain;42784485]well the point of criticism is to cause an argument. argument and discourse is the entire reason philosophy exists. read the writings of greek philosophers. they argue, that's what they do. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] how am i being thick when im asking the meaning of what someone is saying rofl[/QUOTE] I seriously hope you never, [I]EVER[/I] get into any kind of semi-intellectual debate/discussion with someone, because they will think (and rightfully so) that you have a mental disability

[QUOTE=thisispain;42784485]well the point of criticism is to cause an argument. argument and discourse is the entire reason philosophy exists. read the writings of greek philosophers. they argue, that's what they do. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] how am i being thick when im asking the meaning of what someone is saying rofl[/QUOTE] You know exactly what he means, but all you want to do is argue over the definition of criticism. The point of criticism is not to cause an argument, it's to give feedback on something.

[QUOTE=Pelican;42784455]good criticism would be criticising plot holes or things that made no sense, quite the no brainer[/QUOTE] what relevance do plot holes have to feminism academics

[QUOTE=Pelican;42784498]I seriously hope you never, [I]EVER[/I] get into any kind of semi-intellectual debate/discussion with someone, because they will think (and rightfully so) that you have a mental disability[/QUOTE] lol i can't speak for thisispain's credentials but he seems to speak with education and understanding. i may not agree with him all the time but the dude is pretty well educated and knows his shit.

[QUOTE=Pelican;42784498]I seriously hope you never, [I]EVER[/I] get into any kind of semi-intellectual debate/discussion with someone, because they will think (and rightfully so) that you have a mental disability[/QUOTE] sick burn [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Chernobyl426;42784509]You know exactly what he means, but all you want to do is argue over the definition of criticism. The point of criticism is not to cause an argument, it's to give feedback on something.[/QUOTE] no i didn't know what he meant, that's why i was asking lol relax the point of criticism is to cause argument [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique[/url] [quote]Philosophy is the application of critical thought, and is the disciplined practice of processing the theory/praxis problem. In philosophical contexts, such as law or academics, critique is most influenced by Kant's use of the term to mean a reflective examination of the validity and limits of a human capacity or of a set of philosophical claims. This has been extended in modern philosophy to mean a systematic inquiry into the conditions and consequences of a concept, a theory, a discipline, or an approach and/or attempt to understand the limitations and validity of that. A critical perspective, in this sense, is the opposite of a dogmatic one. [/quote] if you think it's to give feedback then take it up with the ancient greek philosophers because they felt philosophy was to argue a rational, not to give feedback. if you think the bechdel test is about feedback you do not understand critical theory. you do not understand literary theory either. the point of criticism is to understand the work in relation to itself and to the culture it's a part of. it's a philosophical argument. yes the idea is to argue. [editline]6th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;42784524]lol i can't speak for thisispain's credentials but he seems to speak with education and understanding. i may not agree with him all the time but the dude is pretty well educated and knows his shit.[/QUOTE] you dont even have to be well educated, reading the wikipedia article on criticism would clear this up quite easily. what do i know, i have a mental disability anyway whoops

But we aren't discussing critique in philosophy. We are discussing critique of films based on the bechdel test. I get the point you are trying to make, but I think we're on two different boats on what we're talking about as criticism right now. Straight out of the wikipedia article, "Some authors draw a distinction between critique and criticism". "According to philosopher Gianni Vattimo, criticism is used more frequently to denote literary criticism or art criticism, that is the interpretation and evaluation of literature and art;"