If it doesn't make you feel something then it isn't art. Depicting sexual assault is clearly an artistic choice. Would it be better if your multi-billion dollar multi-national media company never depicted sexual assault? Did that scene make you cheer for the rapist? Perhaps the artist nailed their intent: inspiring disgust in the audience. Maybe the audience now remembers that sexual assault happens in the real world and just because they don't see it everyday that they should advocate for protection of victims and punishment of perpetrators.
Or maybe it was all pro-rape. Whatever.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say?
How exactly does one "judge a work in its own merit?"
How do you determine whether a movie is good or not? In a vacuum? Measuring its traits against itself?
How can anything at all be judged "on its own merits" without considering the scope of other things related to it?
How does this person writing the article judge the story against itself when they make the claim that this story is bad because men are never sexually assaulted in stories. I can name 2 popular movies off the top of my head (Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption) that had graphic depictions of men being raped and sexually assaulted.
The writer measured the story they were reviewing against the broader world. Not against itself. Therefore, considering the broader world, there's nothing particularly miscreant about a story portraying violence against a human being (male or female).
The writer's incorrect belief that men are never sexually assaulted in film and TV shows is simply limited by their immaturity and lack of knowledge of the many stories that have been told in different mediums for decades.
Let's imagine for a moment that it was instead of Andor and sexual assault, an article about Harry Potter and violence against children. And instead of claiming that anyone who writes a story in which an attractive woman is sexually assaulted has a secret attraction to sexual assault against women, she claimed that J.K Rowling secretly wanted to murder children because one of her characters wanted to do that.
Would that be a good argument?
I'm simply disagreeing with the underlying premise of the article, which is that the things that happen in a storyteller's stories illustrate some internal desire of the storyteller.
> I'm simply disagreeing with the underlying premise of the article, which is that the things that happen in a storyteller's stories illustrate some internal desire of the storyteller.
I see it differently. When the author includes something controversial that fits poorly in their story, and they say they did it because it's realistic, it's worth talking about why they would say that.
I don't think the conclusion is saying that Gilroy likes sexual assault against women, just that he would shoehorn "attractive woman gets assaulted" into his story because he believes that stereotype, to the detriment of viewers (who didn't want to see it), the story (which it doesn't fit), and society (which doesn't need this harmful idea reinforced / could have benefitted from a better look at the topic).
The distinction between story telling and show business - sometimes content merely exists for shock value as a publicity stunt. For example, I had no idea Andor had another season.
Audience and brand - a jarring tonal shift undermines the story. If Game of Thrones ended with everyone singing kumbyah and holding hands, that would upset a lot of people (even more than the current ending, if that's possible). Meanwhile, it would be inappropriate to have Harry Potter end in genocide.
The increasing displays of violence in media and its effect on the psyche - there are real life examples of social media content moderators getting PTSD from exposure to harmful content. Just because something is fictional doesn't mean it can't cause harm, and just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn't mean it's valid art.
rolph•9mo ago
Buxato•9mo ago
readthenotes1•9mo ago