BBC: Is 'bisexual lighting' a new cinematic phenomenon? - Sensationalist Headlines

BBC are you high?

maybe they shouldn't write buzzfeed tier articles then or at the very least make a clear distinction between their entertainment tabloid articles and other areas.

https://i.imgur.com/nkFxqYl.png ???

Extrapolating something from nothing.

I know it as lefty lighting thanks to contrapoints and hbomberguy https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/987879532492304385/3nw0iNLY_400x400.jpg Don't really understand why some here are upset about an article describing society-driven emerging moviemaking techniques and tropes.

Because it makes no sense at all.

So would homosexual lighting involve beaming a rainbow on every single gay person in a movie/show?

I like that they picked the image of Ryan Gosling staring up at his 100ft naked holographic waifu as an example of 'bisexual' lighting.

Because it's utterly artificially contrived bullshit by an organization that knows better. Far better. Anyway I just saw the headline out of the corner of my eye and thought it said "bisexual lightning" which frankly would have been amazing compared to 350,000 grand in parents money thrown down the drain introduction to gender studies 201 let someone else whom is utterly unlike you define what you think about society should be like gobshite that someone got paid to write. Purple, which combines blue and red is now a bisexual color? Being backlit in any kind of stylized motif is now a sexual orientation indicator. Someone actually A thinks this and B someone else said oh yes print that, genius.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Bi_flag.svg/512px-Bi_flag.svg.png

Man that's a really ugly flag. Dunno why they included that purple stripe. I thought purple was used primarily by homosexual people. I demand a more interesting flag.

If you read the article and completely ignore the headline there is nothing wrong with this story at all.

Ehh maybe in some films but it's hardly a universal code for bisexual

So basically this article is meant to catch the eye of anyone who actually believes this and tell them "no of course not"

The thing is context, though. Just having purple and blue lighting doesn't automatically make it a commentary on a character's sexuality. Other than imposing the idea of "bisexual lighting" on a scene at face value like Logan and John Wick, there's nothing in the actual scene nor the story that is alluding to their sexuality. Of course, that applies to those films in particular whereas Moonlight and Black Mirror it was clearly deliberate (I haven't seen Blade Runner 2049 yet, so I can't really comment).

It seems to effectively be a literature review, just for tweets. Whoever the editor is probably just stapled the title on it for clicks.

this is the shittest article i've ever read

A pretty good tacit admission to not reading much, I suppose.

Contriving a premise to attempt to enforce something theoretical at best is not ever the job of a journalist, even in critique.

whoever is writing BBC articles is trying so hard to be stupid and hip

The journalist didn't contrive a premise. It is literally just "Here is a new subculture thing, this is what people are saying about it".

Imagine having such a virulent superiority complex you have to make a Hot Burn towards an obvious piece of hyperbole.

It's a bit of a running joke among the QUILTBAG community, like how everyone claimed the Babadook was a #GayIcon when the film was accidentally put in the LGBT section on Netflix. People latch onto these things and make them super serious business.

I actually like Contrapoints, mainly because he makes me laugh a lot. Funny how that works.

This isn't worth hyperbole at all tho lol, at worst it's just some banal article talking about something some people in entertainment are talking about.

That's an overreaction dude.