Brainwashed: Le sexisme au cinéma

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!

Film maker Nina Menkes delivers a lecture to film students etc advocating that the way films are made and specifically how camera shots of women are composed are still inherently objectifying women such that it is illegal / discriminatory. This is backed up by the analysis of many clips by many different women.

It has been said that you are not going to look at films the same way after this and that's probably true. Mendes puts forward strong, pretty much undeniable arguments to support her point and it is astounding to appreciate that this goes on - although I'm not sure the points she's making works convincingly with every clip. What's more worrying is that Hollywood is still a bastion of male film making with very few women film makers out there and with most men portraying women in a very specific objective and rather offensive way. Not a riveting documentary, but a good argument which like all such cases won't convince everyone - although I'm not sure why. My one complaint is that no one from the 'industry' is in attendance and not a single male to either argue or concede the point.

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.

Why did we not see Mr Craig as Bond coming out the water in slow-mo in Casino Royale, but we saw Halle Berry from Die Another Day. I wonder why?

Cinema is meant to mirror real life, that's be honest here us men as stupid, from the early teens women control us. I wonder if these women interviewed have ever used there bodies to attract men? To get things from men? Women go for looks the same as blokes all this BS about "we are deeper then that" BS try a dating site, try meeting in a room of singles, they see the cover and decide the same as men.

Look at Playboy and the other mags, did people force the women to go into the magazines? NO they done it for money and fame.

A woman who is a close "friend" said to me once, we sit on a pot of Gold you men are so weak, I could not argue with her Monroe who begged to be a straight actor, and was refused got to the heights she did by being pure SEX, Some like it hot for one film.

Women can't get the hump when they use their sexuality to control us like a dog on a lead, then cry when they are portrayed as that in some films.

That Doc is BS some of the old films they showed in black and white these actors could ACT yes they looked sexy, but did you see any skin? And some of these films won awards they were great films, so we hate them now cause of the way the camera shot them.

It would be interesting to know how many blokes in that audience had to adjust their trousers as some of these clips were hot stuff it's like Helen Mirren now one of the Greatest Women actors EVER how did she start off her career, was she forced to do that film?

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.