criterionforum.org

Gregory wrote:I've repeatedly been a little disturbed by how frequently I've seen charges of "chivalry," "white knighting," being a "knight in shining armor," or engaging in "male-led heroics" not only whenever a male person calls something out as sexist or even raises questions related to sexism, but even at times when the discussion has nothing to do with sexism and it just happens to be a male person defending or questioning criticisms leveled at someone who is female or in a discussion involving a female character. It looks like a way of throwing aside the actual substance of the discussion in order to suggest (in many cases when it's baseless and unfair) that the other person has ulterior motives of some sort. It's just all too easy a riposte.

This. Especially in such an overwhelmingly male community as CriterionForum this is a dangerous thing as it basically denies anyone who isn't female the ability to enter into any argument regarding female gender representations.

There's a lot of creepy gendered subtext in a lot of films and personally, I think when there is such a subtext that hurts the film's overall quality. I shouldn't be disqualified from saying this because I'm a man and to be a man and say such a thing automatically equates a sort of condescending sexism. And for the record, I'm gay, and the 'fabulous' depictions of the female in for example Almodóvar piss me off to no end.

Basically, any -ism boils down to treating people like things rather than like people - and if any film's inherent value system involves regarding any group of people as subhuman in any way it deserves to be called out on it. To recognise this isn't "white knighting" or "white guilt".

It's a charge that's intended to relieve the person using it from engaging in the argument at hand, since it avoids the substance of the argument altogether by asserting that the person making that argument lacks the standing to do so. It's a cheap rhetorical trick beloved of racists and sexists the world over - and the thing is that they never suddenly change their tune when it's a minority or a woman making exactly the same argument. Instead, they'll just find different grounds for ruling said argument unacceptable. "Too emotional" or "lack of objectivity" are a couple of popular fallback positions.

I, for one, am going in for reassignment surgery to give my criticism of Lena Dunham more validity.

Is it hyperbole to say Lena Dunham is this generations female Woody Allen?

Who was last generation's female Woody Allen?

Amy Heckerling.

[pulls Woody Allen out from off-camera]

"No, for one thing, I never would have made those films with the baby whose inner monologue sounds like Bruce Willis. You know nothing of my work!"

I think Woody Allen is still the current Woody Allen. As with the Dalai Lama, we must wait until he dies before it makes sense to start looking for a new one.

The comments are at least interesting, far closer to approaching self-awareness from either side than the initial article. I thought this comment summed up the current discourse perfectly:

All the writing about this show is now basically a volley of 'who can get the last word in' between the advocates and detractors.

I want to know what forum doesn't like the 4th season of Breaking Bad

Does Armond White have a forum (or a TV)?

I think the forum is located in Todd VanDerWerff's imagination, right next to his fantasy courtship of Dunham

As someone who works in cable advertising, I can comfortably say that nobody was talking about MTV's I Just Want My Pants Back at all. Good or bad.

He's just embarrassment himself now.

I'm just sadness about it.

That is one ironic post I made.

Some of these criticisms were rooted in misogyny — by men who were likely appalled by the very idea of smart(ish) young women having a show.

I wish I had trusted my instincts and stopped reading there. But oh no, I had to read the whole thing. And now I'm reading the comments. Help!

domino harvey wrote:

Some of these criticisms were rooted in misogyny — by men who were likely appalled by the very idea of smart(ish) young women having a show.

I wish I had trusted my instincts and stopped reading there. But oh no, I had to read the whole thing. And now I'm reading the comments. Help!

Good lord why??? That way madness lies! (I read about three of the comments and got the hell outta there in a hurry.)

domino harvey wrote:

Some of these criticisms were rooted in misogyny — by men who were likely appalled by the very idea of smart(ish) young women having a show.

I wish I had trusted my instincts and stopped reading there. But oh no, I had to read the whole thing. And now I'm reading the comments. Help!

"You don't enjoy the same entertainment as I do, therefore you are misogynist!"

She said some of the criticisms were rooted in misogyny, not all of them, nor that anyone who doesn't the show is a misogynist.
I've seen enough criticisms of the show and of Dunham personally that had a clearly sexist or misogynist subtext to think there are patterns of such attitudes, regardless of what percentage of criticisms of the show these account for.

For those brave enough to venture into this area of the forum, but not brave enough to read all 22 pages, here are the Cliff Notes for this thread:

"I don't like Lena Dunham."

"Why is Tiny Furniture in the Criterion Collection?"

"Todd VanDerWerff isn't helping matters with his defenses."

"*loud fart noises*"

It's a bit redundant to say GIRLS is racist when it is essentially "stuff white people like" the TV series.

Ok so if people don't agree with the Woody Allen comparison how about Paul Morrissey?

Also. Totes impressed that the one person who defended Dunham in the 22 pages of this thread name dropped Denton Welch!

Saw some of Tiny Furniture again last night while my girlfriend was watching on Netflix. Now that the hype has died down, it's a decent film- having seen a few episodes of 'Girls', it also helps to contrast the TF characters with the ones on 'Girls'- so the feeling that Dunham is just offering thinly veiled autobiography has faded, and it's easier to see critical distance in the presentation of the MILIEU.

I do give her credit for getting the quasi/pseudo-intellectual hipster narciss-artist Internet celebrity vibe of 20-somethings who try to compete in status and cultural capital because they don't feel competitive in economic capital (either they aren't, or don't have to be)- I don't think that's new, and I think some of the narcissism and shallowness ideally gets sublimated into actual artistic work as people mature- but the hi!, concept / low effort glib cultural products and the famous-to-15-people accomplishment of Youtube/blog/Tumblr success are accurate..