PUNTUACIÓN EN IMDb
6,2/10
1,2 mil
TU PUNTUACIÓN
Investiga la política del diseño de las tomas cinematográficas y cómo este metanivel del cine se cruza con las epidemias gemelas de abuso sexual y discriminación laboral contra las mujeres, ... Leer todoInvestiga la política del diseño de las tomas cinematográficas y cómo este metanivel del cine se cruza con las epidemias gemelas de abuso sexual y discriminación laboral contra las mujeres, con más de 175 clips de películas de 1896 a 2020.Investiga la política del diseño de las tomas cinematográficas y cómo este metanivel del cine se cruza con las epidemias gemelas de abuso sexual y discriminación laboral contra las mujeres, con más de 175 clips de películas de 1896 a 2020.
- Premios
- 2 premios y 5 nominaciones en total
Raja Bhattar
- Self
- (as Dr. Raja Bhattar)
May Hong HaDuong
- Self
- (as May Hong Haduong)
Reseñas destacadas
It's interesting to see the different opinions from the comment sections. I saw someone made a comment and it goes something like "yes women are being objectified but they are also doing so on their own accord..."and they (sorry to assume but i guess there is 89% chances that they are a cis-gender heterosexual man) used examples if instagram influencer and models...
Utterly speechless, why so defensive? This is a desperate try to distract people and themselves from the actual issues at the core of this film which is extremely poignant. If we are talking about male gaze, and the objectification of men toward women, we are talking about an oppressive troupe which put women in a passive position, dehumanizing women, ignoring their subjectivity and voices while fragmenting their bodies, privileging the male gaze. Influencers and models are a different issue here, what they suggest that is women dont have autonomy and sense to empower themselves by displaying and posing their bodies on sns in their own way. Cuz whatever we do is to cater your gaze and perpetuate male oppression right?
Women have the freedom to choose whatever the way the want to celebrate and display their bodies, its about being comfortable in one's own skin.
And also why not think of why women feel the need sometimes to cater or as they suggest perpetuate the objectification? Its patriarchal pedagogy and propaganda which a lot of us have to unlearn. Its structural, still pinpointing to the cultural of female objectification. Stop being defensive, look inward. Or else you are not getting any point of this documentary.
Utterly speechless, why so defensive? This is a desperate try to distract people and themselves from the actual issues at the core of this film which is extremely poignant. If we are talking about male gaze, and the objectification of men toward women, we are talking about an oppressive troupe which put women in a passive position, dehumanizing women, ignoring their subjectivity and voices while fragmenting their bodies, privileging the male gaze. Influencers and models are a different issue here, what they suggest that is women dont have autonomy and sense to empower themselves by displaying and posing their bodies on sns in their own way. Cuz whatever we do is to cater your gaze and perpetuate male oppression right?
Women have the freedom to choose whatever the way the want to celebrate and display their bodies, its about being comfortable in one's own skin.
And also why not think of why women feel the need sometimes to cater or as they suggest perpetuate the objectification? Its patriarchal pedagogy and propaganda which a lot of us have to unlearn. Its structural, still pinpointing to the cultural of female objectification. Stop being defensive, look inward. Or else you are not getting any point of this documentary.
In her documentary, Nina Menkes explores how the movie industry, through filmmaking techniques and male-centric visions and decisions, has been encouraging and approving the very toxic behaviors that same industry is shyly starting to condemn today.
Not only does Menkes describes how systematically the "male gaze" treatment is applied to female protagonists even and especially in award-winning movie, but also allows her audience to identify the tropes that are being used by filmmakers to construct this sexualised and objectified imagery of women.
Hopefully her matter-of-factly approach will help give her work credibility, given how tricky it is for women to be taken seriously on such controversial subjects.
Not only does Menkes describes how systematically the "male gaze" treatment is applied to female protagonists even and especially in award-winning movie, but also allows her audience to identify the tropes that are being used by filmmakers to construct this sexualised and objectified imagery of women.
Hopefully her matter-of-factly approach will help give her work credibility, given how tricky it is for women to be taken seriously on such controversial subjects.
Authors and guests dive deep into every aspect of film making and history, to find "patriarchal" elements. There are a lot of axioms, which are not defined, but can be perceived through their comments. For example, predatory behaviour comes from men and patriarchy. They set very clear divide between two sexes with many generalisations, which might be true(statistically speaking), but same people would never accept the same treatment if real statistics were used as counter arguments. It's the cat and mouse game between generalisation and specialisation. They usually take whatever suits them best, for a particular situation. Authors don't want to discover, research, learn. They want to impose, in a very "patriarchal" way. Here lies the ultimate truth. Within is the answer they refuse to accept. Every person is a microcosmos. A combination of the worst and the best humanity offers and everything in between. We are biologically separated by combination of X and Y chromosomes, that govern our physical traits but all other characteristics fall into a spectrum. Some are very common and some fall generally more on one side. None of them is inherently good or bad. It's all about the context. Even when we use archetypes from psychology, like "tyrannical father" and "devouring mother", gender is used just as a description, not a permanent label. A man can behave as a "devouring mother". It's sad to see all these accomplished and grown people not being able to behave as adults.
Warning: this film may take you on a rollercoaster of anger-grief-hope.
BRAINWASHED: SEX-CAMERA-POWER is striking in its simple, straightforward demonstration of power dynamics at play in the visual language of cinema, the impact of those dynamics on culture, and solutions for moving forward in a new way.
Filmmaker nina menkes treats the subject in a calm and measured manner, walking the audience through the topic like they're attending a graduate film studies class.
The audience is given a multitude of examples which demonstrate a visual pattern that is - whether intentionally or unintentionally - reinforced throughout a century of filmmaking, a pattern that most often objectifies women and minorities.
The film links this pattern to the wider, societal implications, its role in contributing to the everyday objectification of women and minorities in workplaces and interpersonal interactions, and the inequitable economics of filmmaking.
Then, rather than condemning the visual pattern, or shaming those who use it, the film plainly asks, "is this style of visual language effectively communicating the narrative?" and/or "is there another way to accomplish the goal that may be even more effective?" here, examples of alternatives are provided.
By bringing the pattern into conscious awareness without any shame or retribution, the film allows the audience an opportunity to choose to heal the collective trauma wrought by the normalization of on-screen dehumanization, and to be free of the unconscious visual language so that it can be transformed into an entirely new system.
BRAINWASHED: SEX-CAMERA-POWER is striking in its simple, straightforward demonstration of power dynamics at play in the visual language of cinema, the impact of those dynamics on culture, and solutions for moving forward in a new way.
Filmmaker nina menkes treats the subject in a calm and measured manner, walking the audience through the topic like they're attending a graduate film studies class.
The audience is given a multitude of examples which demonstrate a visual pattern that is - whether intentionally or unintentionally - reinforced throughout a century of filmmaking, a pattern that most often objectifies women and minorities.
The film links this pattern to the wider, societal implications, its role in contributing to the everyday objectification of women and minorities in workplaces and interpersonal interactions, and the inequitable economics of filmmaking.
Then, rather than condemning the visual pattern, or shaming those who use it, the film plainly asks, "is this style of visual language effectively communicating the narrative?" and/or "is there another way to accomplish the goal that may be even more effective?" here, examples of alternatives are provided.
By bringing the pattern into conscious awareness without any shame or retribution, the film allows the audience an opportunity to choose to heal the collective trauma wrought by the normalization of on-screen dehumanization, and to be free of the unconscious visual language so that it can be transformed into an entirely new system.
Coming here to read the reviews after finishing the documentary and seeing so many angry men labelling the director obnoxious, "bpd feminist", etc etc, just proves the point that this documentary was NEEDED in the field of filmmaking.
The documentary is a window towards a new perspective in filmmaking, where women directors (and anywhere in the movie industry) are empowered by having equal opportunities to express their creativity while having it valued justly by the industry.
The director Nina Menkes raises some essential questions which are upon the future generations of creatives to answer. She has a way of engrossing the viewer to what is being presented, while also making them an active part of it.
I hope this documentary sparks a new era in the filmmaking industry and beyond.
"The first feminist act is looking. To say, "Ok, you're looking at me, but I am looking right back." Agnes Varda.
The documentary is a window towards a new perspective in filmmaking, where women directors (and anywhere in the movie industry) are empowered by having equal opportunities to express their creativity while having it valued justly by the industry.
The director Nina Menkes raises some essential questions which are upon the future generations of creatives to answer. She has a way of engrossing the viewer to what is being presented, while also making them an active part of it.
I hope this documentary sparks a new era in the filmmaking industry and beyond.
"The first feminist act is looking. To say, "Ok, you're looking at me, but I am looking right back." Agnes Varda.
¿Sabías que...?
- ConexionesFeatures La fée aux choux (1896)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- Títulos en diferentes países
- Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power
- Empresas productoras
- Ver más compañías en los créditos en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- 1.550.000 US$ (estimación)
- Recaudación en Estados Unidos y Canadá
- 28.826 US$
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- 7409 US$
- 23 oct 2022
- Recaudación en todo el mundo
- 46.077 US$
- Duración
- 1h 47min(107 min)
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta