Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

girafa t1_iydb4jn wrote

> deep dive into American media Mandela effects

Like what?

> lens runs over these scenes objectively

Nothing in this movie is looked at objectively, tbf

4

chillinwithunicorns t1_iydetbn wrote

This guy just found out what a thesaurus is lol

10

girafa t1_iydfjuv wrote

lol yeah I mean, I dig people dusting off words like "fetishistic scopophilia" but this ain't Peeping Tom or Neon Demon, the movie doesn't really investigate the gaze imo.

2

diet_Cupcake28 OP t1_iydqit6 wrote

Idk I think there's room for healthy disagreement. I'm a woman and I am very interested in the portrayal of women in film (a la Mulvey/Bechdel). I found the portrayal of women particularly interesting in this movie, and there was plenty of gazing at ass and titties... Pissing... Killing... being tortured.

1

girafa t1_iydx6vh wrote

Yeah? Hmm. Not a great deal of nudity nor any sort of gratuity/meditation on lustful desire. I think the movie portrays sex more in a primal sense, with the obvious sex & violence connection. Rodney Dangerfield craves his daughter and we see his eyes/her ass, but it's not about the feminine form or voyeurism, it's carnal demand and dominance.

3