Avatar

This Blog Is No Longer Occupied

@turkeybaconesearchive-blog / turkeybaconesearchive-blog.tumblr.com

Hi! I got kicked off the blog and had to relocate!! Find me >>HERE
Posts
Avatar

NEW BLOG, GUYS

i haven’t been on my laptop in a while but holy shit i’m still logged in here in browser. hey guys!!! go follow me at the new blog!!!

Avatar
reblogged
rockscanfly
Avatar
lierdumoa

I made these points in a reblog, but I want to re-state them in their own post, so that it shows up in the main tag.

Mad Max: Fury Road is a story about sexists, told by non-sexists.

I know it’s a bit confusing, because we’re so used to seeing stories about sexists told by sexists. We’re so used to sexism being portrayed by sexist male filmmakers for the sake of a sexist male audience, that we’ve been fooled into thinking this is the only way sexism even can be portrayed.

eabevella’s review of MMFR pointed out that the villains never call women “bitches,” nor are they shown overtly leering at the women in the film, and took this as evidence that the villains in the movie are not sexist. That they objectify women, but only in the way that they objectify everything, and their objectification is in fact quite egaitarian.

While the assessment that the villains are not shown leering or spitting gendered slurs is correct, I’m going to go ahead and say that the conclusion eabevella drew from this is wrong, wrong, so very wrong.

See, there’s a great lie we’ve been told – that in order for an audience to understand that a character is sexist, women must be humiliated on camera.

The truth is this:

When a male character calls a female character a bitch in a movie, that is not the filmmaker’s way of showing the audience the character is sexist; that is the filmmaker’s way of showing the audience that the character’s sexist point of view is worth hearing.

Read that paragraph over and over until it sinks in.

Mad Max: Fury Road makes it absolutely clear that the villains are sexist, and it does so without ever once implying that their sexist point of view is worth hearing. Instead, we learn that they are sexist second-hand, through context and world-building.

We see that the wives have been dressed in ridiculous, impractical gauze bikinis. We see that the wives are not only young and healthy, but also model-pretty. Through these subtle details, the narrative makes it clear that Immorten Joe, the villain, chose these women not just as useful stock, but as sexual objects in which he took sexual pleasure.

In contrast, when the movie introduces the audience to the wives, the movie makes sure to portray them in as humanized, and non-sexualized a manner as possible. Even when they are literally bathing together, we don’t see any water running down chests while the models arch their backs and run their fingers through their hair and sigh pleasurably. Instead we see a bunch of women perfunctorily rinsing off legs and feet, looking exhausted. When they see Max for the first time, they take on fearful, closed off expressions, and project fearful, closed off body language.

Compare this to, for example, Theon Greyjoy’s castration in HBO’s Game of Thrones. We know he was castrated, even though no one ever says the word “castration” and the camera never shows a penis being lopped off. The filmmakers manage to convey that the mutilation has taken place, but respect the character enough not to make a lurid scene out of it (and yet proceed to make lurid scenes out of every possible denigration and mutilation of every possible female character they can cram into their commercial free timeslot).

.

As for Imperator Furiosa, it is hard for us, the audience, to not see Charlize Theron as a beautiful woman. But when we compare her appearance in the movie to that of the wives, it’s clear to see that Imperator Furiosa is, in fact, the opposite of what Immorten Joe and his war mongering culture view as desirable, beautiful, or womanly. They do not sexually objectify her because to them she is sexless.

If we ignore our own biased understanding of Furiosa – as a character that a beautiful actress is portraying – and instead immerse ourselves in the culture of the Miller’s world, it becomes obvious that Furiosa has taken great pains to make herself genderless under the villains’ gaze, and that her efforts have succeeded.

From Entertainment Weekly:

It was Theron herself who unlocked the image of the androgynous warrior—a woman who has escaped the fate of other women by erasing her gender.
“I just said, ‘I have to shave my head,’” Theron recalls. Furiosa is a war-rig operator living in a place where all other females have been enslaved as breeding and milking chattel. But Furiosa is barren and therefore of no value to the despot Immortan Joe and his soldiers. She is considered worthless. ”They almost forget she’s a woman, so there is no threat,” she says. “I understood a woman that’s been hiding in a world where she’s been discarded.” [x]

.

The villains in the movie are absolutely misogynist. They are absolutely sexist. They do absolutely view beautiful women as sexual objects that exist purely for the male gaze.

But the movie is not about them.

The movie, instead, portrays sexist men as obstacles for the heroes of the movie to overcome.

#mad max#q
Avatar
reblogged
Avatar
turkeybaconesearchive-blog

BEING LOCKED OUT OF MY TUMBLR

I can’t update my email preferences with them because they no longer accept my actual password. I’ve been kicked out of mobile but I’m still managing access in browser. I just want to let y’all know that I might have to switch blogs!!!

I’ve renamed this account turkeybaconesearchives, and have an account set up with my primary email under my old url.

Please go and follow that blog!!!

^^ Click this link to keep following me!!!! ^^

I’m going to go through and try to follow all the blogs that i was before but if I miss your blog please let me know!!!!!

I’m going to queue this post so it appears pretty frequently, just so to increase the chances of everyone seeing it. I love all my followers and I hope you all manage to follow me over at the “new” account. <333

Avatar
reblogged
cryptcombat
Avatar
keroa

reblog if AAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Avatar
numahachi

アアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアアア

Avatar
phuiscribbles

啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊 啊  啊 啊 啊

Image
Avatar
valbrandur
Image
Avatar
ddemotivators
Avatar
skarchomp
Image
Avatar
putas666
#q
Avatar
reblogged
tweedle-dipshit
Avatar
wilwheaton

(The Moon’s surface in true color and high resolution, via China’s Yutu rover  (JPEG Image, 4095 × 2768 pixels))

Okay, this picture is HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE, and it’s amazing.

Avatar
bobak

It’s surreal to see a world without* an atmosphere and therefore a deep black sky. And before you claim it’s fake because there aren’t any stars, that’s because camera exposure to see the surface is too short.

*technically the moon has an atmosphere, but it’s around 10-100 trillionth of ours^

^assuming you’re reading this from Earth, and this isn’t being read in the year 2050 on a Mars colony

Avatar
goddamnshinyrock

I was zoomed in on it, trying to figure out why it was making me vaguely uncomfortable and why my mind kept insisting this was fake, and I realized the problem I was having was that I was expecting atmospheric perspective to fade the contrast on the farther objects and make the horizon hazy, but….. no atmosphere. 

Avatar
pipistrellus

i… am …disturbed

Avatar
prokopetz

The preceding comment is interesting because it highlights one of the ways that our perception of reality can be culturally influenced.

You know how sometimes, when you’re watching a movie with computer-generated special effects, you can just tell whether certain scenes are CGI, even though you can’t put your finger on exactly why?

Well, one of the things your brain is picking up on to make that determination is missing or incorrectly simulated atmospheric haze; this is highly characteristic of cheap CGI because atmospheric haze is a huge pain in the ass to correctly calculate - most low-budget productions either omit it entirely, or else fake it with simple linear distance fog.

That’s why photos of the Lunar surface and objects in outer space tend to look fake to modern audiences: we’ve been unconsciously conditioned to associate wonky atmospheric haze with bad CGI.

Source: reddit.com
#space#q
You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.