1 2 3 4 5
I think it's perfectly reasonable to examine a work of art for the views and attitudes it holds.

There's a BIG difference between examining a work for it's views and attitudes and assuming that you know an artist's ... come off branding Brett Easton Ellis a misogynist because the subtleties of their art go flying right over your head?

Can you show me where, in this thread, I've claimed that I know Frank Miller's heart and mind? As for Brett Easton Ellis, well, since we're not talking about it (nor about "people like me," either, we're talking about me) I fail to see why it's relevant to this discussion.

It doesn't take much "careful picking over" to find "Sin City" remarkably sexist. It's pretty clear if you watch the film.

You also don't know much about what I write, what interests me in art, or what kinds of films I like. I see you've happily plugged me into a little box to make it easier for you to dismiss my criticism.

The notion that "Sin City" has some deeper meaning which would be lost if you "sanitized it" is downright absurd. It's pulpy trash aimed at 14-year old boys, or people who's mental maturity hasn't kept up with their physical development.
You seem to have a very unhealthy, utilitarian view of art. Since when was the purpose of art to create role models?

You seem to have an unhealthy lack of ability to read, since I have NEVER suggest that the problem with "Sin City" was the lack of role models, and, in fact, in the post you're responding to (which you quoted, so I assume you read it did you just have trouble understanding it?) I wrote "I've gone into some detail on why I think Sin City is incredibly sexist, and it doesn't have to do with role models."
I'm going to stop writing now, since I doubt you'll bother read this post, either. It might, you know, make you have to think.

-Ron
But as someone who believes that work reflects the values and attitudes of it's creators, I find it perfectly reasonable ... The notion that you can't look for values or attitudes in work unless they're somehow uplifting strikes me as absurd.

I wouldn't deny that some works of art can be pretty revealing, but certainly some works are more revealing than others. Alexander Nevsky, for example, is blantantly propaganda. Gone With the Wind has slightly more subtle, but still pretty apparent elements of racism. But what does The Godfather reveal about its creators?
In the case of Sin City, I don't see stylized pulp as being a particularly revealing form. It would, of course, reveal that the creators were probably fond of stylized pulp, but little else. I find calling the film, and its makers, obviously sexist - and taking stylized pulp seriously in the first place - just slightly less ridiculous than the charge that Beethoven's 9th is a celebration of misogyny.
It doesn't take much "careful picking over" to find "Sin City" remarkably sexist.

Indeed not. I went into it with such careful picking over in mind, and didn't find that.

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
I wouldn't deny that some works of art can be pretty revealing, but certainly some works are more revealing than ... has slightly more subtle, but still pretty apparent elements of racism. But what does The Godfather reveal about its creators?

I think it reveals a lot about family and the immigrant experience (on an emotional level. It's not quiet that literal). But actually The Godfather is I think one of the great examples of how much a filmmaker can bring to what is, at its core, a piece of pulpy genre material.

Think about what that movie could be it's a movie about a gang war, it's a movie where in the opening sceen a groom bangs one of his wife's bridesmaids in the bathroom, etc and then think about where the emphasis is in that film.
In the case of Sin City, I don't see stylized pulp as being a particularly revealing form. It would, of ... in the first place - just slightly less ridiculous than the charge that Beethoven's 9th is a celebration of misogyny.

Well, I understand your point. Some movies are essentially below such analysis. But something like Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Return" is ALSO clearly a piece of stylized pulp, just like "Sin City," but it's also an intelligent piece of work with an interesting perspective. Heck, one of Frank Miller's great accomplishments is taking the comic book (er, um, graphic novel) and, along with a few others like Alan Watson, showing that despite the pulp trappings it was worthy of being taken seriously.
-Ron
There's a BIG difference between examining a work for it's ... subtleties of their art go flying right over your head?

Can you show me where, in this thread, I've claimed that I know Frank Miller's heart and mind?

No, you haven't stated that, but you've certainly implied that you can tell whether someone is a sexist or not based on their work.

As for Brett Easton Ellis, well, since we're
not talking about it (nor about "people like me," either, we're talking about me) I fail to see why it's relevant to this discussion.

In a previous thread you showed that you completely misunderstood Ellis' book. That's why I brought it up.
It doesn't take much "careful picking over" to find "Sin City" remarkably sexist. It's pretty clear if you watch the film.

To you*! You're stating an subjective opinion as if it were an empirical fact! And what about those who don't find it sexist? Does that make *them sexist?
You also don't know much about what I write, what interests me in art, or what kinds of films I like. I see you've happily plugged me into a little box to make it easier for you to dismiss my criticism.

True, but what can I say? I've heard your speil before and know the type of person it comes from. You seem to do a lot of grandstanding when it comes to sexism, racism and other "ism's" in art.
The notion that "Sin City" has some deeper meaning which would be lost if you "sanitized it" is downright absurd. It's pulpy trash aimed at 14-year old boys, or people who's mental maturity hasn't kept up with their physical development.

And what's wrong with that? Sometimes you want a four course gourmet dinner (i.e. Shakespeare) and sometimes you want a big, greasy cheeseburger with fries (i.e. Pulp fantasies).
You seem to have a very unhealthy, utilitarian view of art. Since when was the purpose of art to create role models?

You seem to have an unhealthy lack of ability to read, since I have NEVER suggest that the problem with ... some detail on why I think Sin City is incredibly sexist, and it doesn't have to do with role models."

Oh, I read what you wrote. I didn't say that your beef with it related to role models. I did, I'll admit, lump you in with the bunch who decry "Sin City" for that reason.
I'm going to stop writing now, since I doubt you'll bother read this post, either. It might, you know, make you have to think.

Dude, you shouldn't talk. At least I can think for myself and don't get my worldview pre-fabricated from PC Thought Police headquarters.

Cheers,
B
As for Brett Easton Ellis, well, since we're

not talking about it (nor about "people like me," either, we're talking about me) I fail to see why it's relevant to this discussion.

In a previous thread you showed that you completely misunderstood Ellis' book. That's why I brought it up.

Really? Here's what I wrote about it:
I read it, and remembering thinking of it as a misogynistic poorly-written piece of trash written primarily for shock value. Don't remember finding the book racist, but I didn't find it worthwehile, either.

and
Honestly, since it's been over ten years since I read it, I can't recall many specifics just the feeling it gave me.

And that's it. From that you can deduce that I "completely misunderstood it?"
Seriously, Brian, I think you have a problem with trying to squeeze me into a box regardless of whether or not I fit. My opinions are more nuanced than you want to give me credit for.
To you*! You're stating an subjective opinion as if it were an empirical fact! And what about those who don't find it sexist? Does that make *them sexist?

I think there are things about which reasonable people can disagree. However, I think that people who don't find a film like this sexist probably fit into one of a few groups:
1) They don't care to look and think about if it is sexist
2) They aren't intellectually capable of looking at the filmanalytically in that way.
or
3) They're sexist.

I think you're probably a #1, but your repeated misstatements about what I believe, and your rampant desire to reduce my opinions to a series of derogatory catchphrases gives me some cause for doubt.
True, but what can I say? I've heard your speil before and know the type of person it comes from. You seem to do a lot of grandstanding when it comes to sexism, racism and other "ism's" in art.

I find this downright hysterical because if anything, I've been accused of being racist. I don't think my "spiel" is anything like what you seem to think it is.
The notion that "Sin City" has some deeper meaning which ... who's mental maturity hasn't kept up with their physical development.

And what's wrong with that? Sometimes you want a four course gourmet dinner (i.e. Shakespeare) and sometimes you want a big, greasy cheeseburger with fries (i.e. Pulp fantasies).

Here you're completely missing the point. What you're doing in this discussion is responding to someone who says, "A cheeseburger will clog your arteries" by saying, "It's not supposed to be healthy for you."

Well, no ***. But that still doesn't make cheeseburgers good for you. And if you want to say, "Yeah, I know, but I like it so I don't care," that's fine, but again, it's a different thing from claiming that cheeseburgers are good for you and it's not a response on the merits of the charge that cheeseburgers are bad for you, either.

We could discuss "Sin City" they way you might discuss cheeseburgers (by which standards, I don't think it's McDonalds, but it's not very good, either) ignoring, for the moment, the question of whether or not cheeseburgers are good for you. I think that's a perfectly reasonable way to talk about the movie - but it's not the whole picture.

Throughout this discussion I've referenced films that deliver the thrills of good, pulpy fiction and yet do so without being sexist in the ways Sin City is so, clearly, I'm not saying people should only watch "Shakespeare." (Sorry. I know squeezing me into that box is part of your agenda, but I really don't fit).
But the notion that you shouldn't discuss the sexism of the film because the film wasn't trying to say anything is sort of silly. I mean, a guy making porn videos is just trying to get you off and maybe make a few bucks in the process he's almost certainly not thinking at all about the 'message' of his work. But the message is there nonetheless, don't you think?
-Ron
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.