Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power

Once you see this movie, you can't unsee what it clearly demonstrates.

Brainwashed is a giant step in bringing awareness to the subtle and not-so-subtle ways women are treated as second class citizens through cinematic process and technique. Brainwashed shows how consistent camera angles, lighting, and other shot design elements are applied exclusively to women, such that women are almost exclusively presented as objects of other's (men's mostly) desires rather than as their own subjects in the characters they portray.

This below awareness process inculcates patriarchal codes! "If the camera is predatory, then the culture is predatory."

This is a meta-level awareness game changer of a film! Must see!

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.

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.

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.

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.