Still mostly reblogs, fight me

1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
assumptionprime
thedreadvampy

male gaze is not ‘when person look sexy’ or ‘when misogynist make film’

death of the author is not ‘miku wrote this’

I don’t think you have to read either essay to grasp the basic concepts

death of the author means that once a work is complete, what the author believes it to mean is irrelevant to critical analysis of what’s in the text. it means when analysing the meaning of a text you prioritise reader interpretation above author intention, and that an interpretation can hold valid meaning even if it’s utterly unintentional on the part of the person who created the thing. it doesn’t mean ‘i can ignore that the person who made this is a bigot’ - it may in fact often mean ‘this piece of art holds a lot of bigoted meanings that the author probably wasn’t intentionally trying to convey but did anyway, and it’s worth addressing that on its own terms regardless of whether the author recognises it’s there.’ it’s important to understand because most artists are not consciously and vocally aware of all the possible meanings of their art, and because art is communal and interpretive. and because what somebody thinks they mean, what you think somebody means, and what a text is saying to you are three entirely different things and it’s important to be able to tell the difference.

male gaze is a cinematographic theory on how films construct subjectivity (ie who you identify with and who you look at). it argues that film language assumes that the watcher is a (cis straight white hegemonically normative) man, and treats men as relatable subjects and women as unknowable objects - men as people with interior lives and women as things to be looked at or interacted with but not related to. this includes sexual objectification and voyeurism, but it doesn’t mean ‘finding a lady sexy’ or 'looking with a sexual lens’, it means the ways in which visual languages strip women of interiority and encourage us to understand only men as relatable people. it’s important to understand this because not all related gaze theories are sexual in nature and if you can’t get a grip on male gaze beyond 'sexual imagery’, you’re really going to struggle with concepts of white or abled or cis subjectivities.

sisification

#also like. male gaze isnt just about individual films. its about Trends that are common and happen across All of cinema#pointing to specific movies is about using them as an example to illustrate a point#the point of the concept isnt to be a gotcha at specific movies its about pointing out trends and the limited worldview and scope#of hollywood filmmaking and especially from that specific era#its about how filmmaking reflects a very specific worldview of a very specific dominant group#and it gets a LOT more complicated if you apply it to cinema that isnt western that has its own history#and especially when you bring in the intersections of race class queerness and other identities#that have their own context and their own history and nuances to how they relate to this concept…#you dont just slap it on any random movie you dont like to make it look bad.

demilypyro
demilypyro

It's very telling how the Barbie movie is being accused of hating men when the movie treats men exactly the way most movies treat women: In Barbie, the men are treated as obstacles and side characters in the story of the female protagonist who the audience is expected to relate to. There's even several scenes where the men are clearly positioned to be eye candy. Put on your typical Indiana Jones or Bond movie and you'll see the exact same in reverse but men aren't used to it happening to them. I enjoyed the eyecandy scenes greatly btw

thebibliosphere
thiefking

actually you know what that's exactly it i would rather someone add 5 parantheticals after every sentence than use tone indicators it's 1. accomplishing SO much more in terms of clarity 2. extremely funny to look at depending on how they're used

thiefking

observe:

"is this real? /gen" — i thought /gen meant "general" for ages. i would not be able to understand this on first sight a few years ago and is thus ineffective

"is this real? (genuine question)" — i fully understand this without issue

"is this real? (genuine question) (can't tell) (very realistic) (looks real) (scary) (photoshop?)" — is not only incredibly clear it's also very funny to read all of these thoughts stapled together while also in their own parentheses. it's also the most useful because now i can actually address all parts of what they are asking me with as much specificity as BOTH of us need