People on Film Twitter are trying to retroactively cancel Dario Argento for allegedly inappropriately using the so-called male gaze in this scene. But nothing about the cinematography in this scene is inherently male or exclusive to male directors.
>>223465580Dario Argento is like unabashed male gaze personified, literally kills off his feminist critics as a joke in Tenebrae. He’s based. Not everyone deserves a platform or opinion.
>>223465845It’s true he’s a chauvinist, but it’s not like his style was novel for the time. Thats just how it was done
>>223465580>twitterThe ‘male gaze’ on that platform and reddit is anything they deem inappropriate in order to validate their retarded opinions, regardless of whether or not it actually fits. Best to just ignore them.
>>223465580>What even is the “male gaze”?foidbabble
>>223465580They want to cancel him because the scene makes them hard. Every accusation is a confession.
>>223466074The term was actually invented by a man
>>223465580Much to contemplate on regarding this clip.
>TwitterAny mainstream social media users have always been and always will be low-IQ retarded cattle. They need the consensus of the majority to influece their opinions and make decisions instead of having the willpower to think intelligently and make decisions for themselves.
>>223465580>trying to retroactively cancel Dario ArgentoWhat do you mean retroactively? Are the woke-scolds not aware he's still alive? Well neither was I.
>>223465580>What even is the “male gaze”?When you like curves too much.
>>223465580Anything that makes old, dry hags seethe
>(Squeaking intensifies)
>>223465580Youd think they’d be more up in arms over Dario traumatizing a girl who was terrified of mice
>>223465580It's moral hysteria driven by faggots, just like the rest of their made up retardese.
i'd call the OP the nonce gaze
>>223465580You're a male right?What do your eyes look at?What do your eyes focus on?That's the male gaze. Foids are bitching are bitching about the fact that movies are made by men, and so the camera focuses on and frames things from a male visual perspective.So in this instance I guess they're mad because the shot moves along the girl's legs up to her face, instead of whatever the fuck women look at.
>>223465580As far as I know, "male gaze" is the overly sexualized/objectified way in which men showcase women in films and tv (like showing a close-up of a clevage or treating a woman like an ornament).With that in mind, it might be said that the "male gaze" here frames the legs of the woman in a way that might be percieved weird, and also because the dress is odly specific. I don't really think it is male gaze tho, because it is just a woman held hostage
>>223467529The women would just demand that the actress be dressed in track pants and a baggy sweater so you couldn't see that she was more attractive than them.
>>223467529>That's the male gazeNot exactly. It specifically occurs when the camera mimics a male perspective when no actual men are present.So if you had a shot where the camera was leering at a woman, but from the perspective of a male character looking at her, that would not be the male gaze.
>>223468019The use of the technique combined with the actresses’s age here could be at issue
>>223467319More women than gay men I would say
>>223465580It’s the mouse gazebecause it shows cute mice in close up
>>223465580Cute mousey
Bro... I don't give a single flying fuck. Twitter this, Twitter that, who cares?
>>223468205>if it’s something men like it’s bad
>>223468922The male gaze is a descriptive term from the 70s that was invented by a man, anon. It’s not inherently positive or negative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze
>>223467442that's pure nonce-sense
>>223468951It is absolutely inherently negative, this is cope.
>>223468951invented by a foid no less. thanks for nothing negative nancy
>>223469217>The concept was first introduced by art historian John Berger, in his work Ways of Seeing (1972)
Yes it is the male gaze. No that is not a bad thing. The thing about Feminist literary criticism or any kind of criticism is that it is explicitly looking at a thing through a specific lens. It's not the correct way to look at a thing, it is just one of many ways to look at a thing.To me, I look at this shot and yes, it's clearly focusing on her thighs which her dress has been pulled up over to expose. This exposure makes her look vulnerable. It's an uncomfortable shot because it is supposed to be.
>>223469244jews aren’t men
>>223465580The Cat O'nine Tails?
>>223469352>his father, Stanley, raised as a non-religious Jew who adopted Catholicism,[6] had been an infantry officer on the Western Front during the First World War and was awarded the Military Cross[3][7] and an OBE.[8]
>what even is the male gazeWhen a woman is framed as sexy. It seems kind of sleazy when you overdo it, but I'd argue some degree of male gaze is natural and beneficial for a movie to have. Completely asexual framing feels unnatural and sterile.
>>223465580male gaze is sexist
>>223470599This
>>223469257The weird thing is you can't shoot that scene any other way to establish the proximity of the rats to herThe legs are ALWAYS going to be in the shotThe only thing you can do is make the panning faster I guess
>>223470599You have to wonder how fucking mentally ill feminists are to spew shit like that.
>>223471473Reads like it was written by AI to me.
Why don't you take a seat?
>>223471397Typical horror is rack focus from her POV of the rats, to reverse shot of her face/eyes in terror. Emphasizing her legs/figure is sexualizing
>>223471662Or you could pull a Raimi and shoot it from the rat’s pov
>>223465580I automatically assume all italian and french directors are perverted pedos.
>>223468817>>223468889I hope you guys are memeing Rodents are fuckin gross and spread disease
>>223471662>Emphasizing her legs/figure is sexualizingHow is it emphasized? Why is the focus on a childish figure sexualizing?
>>223471794nta but it's a safe bet audiences would be primed to interpret the shot as sexual given the genre and Argento himself. It's how I did until it pans up.It seems to me not so debatable whether it actually is a sexual shot but whether it's legit pedophilic or if it's meant to purposefully subvert the trope and surprise the audience
>>223465580>What even is the “male gaze”?Sophist drivel with no inherent meaning that just gets dusted off and pulled out anytime feminists or leftists in general want to demonize the healthy, natural heterosexuality applicable to 97%+ of the planet's population.
>>223465580Dude fucked his daughter and this is what they have an objection to?
>>223466764>The term was actually invented by a cuckFixed that for you.
>>223470599Literally every image ever taken of another human and produced or reproduced "objectifies" them to some degree. It's a meaningless term.What the fuck is the actual metric differentiating appreciating somebody's looks in a way that """objectifies""" them and appreciating somebody's looks in a way that DOESN'T """objectify""" them?The Amswer?: There isn't one. At least not a consistent one. The closest thing they have to a consistent metric is "how the feminists feel about it in that particular situation at that particular point in time". That's why you'll see insipid social-media posts by self-professed feminists bemoaning the supposed """male gaze""" immediately followed by and proceeded by numerous posts of them unironically salivating over pictures of a boy band with their shirts off or some shit, all without even the slightest shred of self-awareness.
>>223470599>the "male gaze" is when men look at hot womanWow, riveting.
>>223466764>invented by a manEverything is.
>>223465580People like Ncuti Gatwa, Neil Patrick Harris, Allan Carr, John Barrowman, and Russell T. Davis.
>>223469352>>223471950
>>223465580serious pedo vibes in this thread
>>223466764>>223468951What type of man?
