unknownuser19970330 - Tumblr blog

unknownuser19970330 · 1 year

Text

亚特兰大第三季第三集

我的天donald glover 太有才了，亚特兰大是我看过最好笑最一针见血去criticize 资本和西方特有文化种族歧视的电视剧，怎么能有最扯的例子用最微不足道的故事把种族歧视，不同颜色和文化背景的种族，一定的白人文化的这种intersectiaonlity 来说出来呢。

在讨论种族歧视和资本阶级的影响下，我觉得亚特兰大的独特性存在于他能从不同程度的西方白人文化和不同程度的资本阶级来讲一个巨好笑的小事，通过这种巨好笑的小事来呈现和隐喻这种社会现象。

好比说拿第三季第三集那个亚洲女性和Darius的交道所延伸出来的arc。Dariu像英国亚裔女性帮忙拿亚裔女性旁边的Gin，这位英国韩裔女性（北韩并且）误以为Darius 是在搭讪（这里有呈现了一点点的社会性gender dynamic）。这名亚裔女性当意识到自己误会了的时候，抱歉并且笑着对Darius说，抱歉我以为你在跟我搭讪因为我之前在洛杉矶住过，在洛杉矶住的时候很多黑人男性都会像我搭讪。Darius笑着回复说亚裔女性和黑人男性是一个cultural exchange，亚裔女性喜欢hip-hop黑人男性喜欢看动漫。两个人笑了笑，这个邂逅在亚裔女性笑着说Darius 你很幽默结束了。稍后一个叫Socks的白人男性走过来并且跟Darius 说这个亚裔女性在种族歧视，事情愈演愈烈，故事传到最后也不像当初原本的邂逅，到结尾这些白人甚至说这个女的是个cunt，以至于最后这个亚裔女性被她的英国白人未婚夫解除婚约。

我觉得这一条线很准确并且诙谐的体现了如今白左和extreme liberal 白人党的种族歧视，或者你也可以称这种行为为microaggression。白左永远会站着去谴责这种行为，但是他们不一定会通过实际行动去改变体制上的种族压迫。他们也会经常挑拨弱势群体之间的互相歧视，历史上这种歧视包括挑拨爱尔兰人与黑人，以及现在挑拨亚裔和黑人。他们甚至不会去听或者了解弱势群体背后的文化背景，有时候某些文化背景导致其实他们并不是在种族歧视，但是因为白左盲目并且对多文化的无知，会让人他们真的坚信弱势群体是在歧视弱势群体。

亚特兰大前期讲述了许多种族和阶级之类的故事，但是这些故事都比较简单直接，是人类定义上常见的种族和阶级歧视。但是感觉这第三季更加偏重了讲述带有复杂性和多元文化交接的种族和阶级歧视。尤其是在这第三集，里面的这些白左还是英国人，而不是美国的。亚特兰大很擅长用不同的白人文化，不同的白人西方社会和西方文化，并且利用不同的弱势群体背景，来讲一个很黑色幽默的故事。我最喜欢的亚特兰大的一点是，他不会像别的情景喜剧告诉你什么时候应该笑，一整部剧甚至连音乐的渲染都少之又少。但是真到好笑的点，你肯定绝对会笑出来。甚至如果你的文化背景成长环境不一样，每个观众会觉得好笑的点也完全不一样。

谢谢亚特兰大让我感叹讲故事这个过程的复杂性。

当然，以上只是我的想法并且这无法概括所有的种族歧视体验。

0 notes

unknownuser19970330 · 1 year

Text

中文Tar评价

我就是想练练我中文写作能力

Tar塔尔，2022年电影，Todd Field导演的作品，是一个把角色解析制作的非常好的电影。与其说这部电影的重心是讲一个故事，还不如说这个电影是以角色本身为基础的一个故事。若你是一个非常喜欢讨论人性，了解人性，并且对心理学感兴趣的人，这部电影对于你来说会非常的有趣。

塔尔这个角色的塑造大致是基础与我们社会里那些非常有权力的白人男性，一些典型的例子包括Harvey Weinstein哈维韦恩斯坦，Jefferey Weinstein, 杰弗里韦恩斯坦，Woody Allen 吴迪艾伦。这个导演和编剧决定将塔尔这个角色设置为一名女同性恋，并且通过女性的性别角度和社会角色来诉说这个故事让这个故事变得更加有自己的特色，并且添加了一层人性的复杂性。我并不是想要否认男性角色相对来讲比女性角色无聊，只是同样在社会里，女性的社会地位和社会经历跟男性是不一样的。这种性别和权力的intersectionality让整个故事有了更深一层的解刨。Intersectionality 翻译成为中文为交叉性，我并不确定中文intersectionality的学术词，但intersectionality通常指多重个人身份的组合所被影响到的社会体验，举例子说男性和白人的交叉性会让白男在我们的社会里得到一些特权（privilege)，相对来说，亚裔和男性的交叉性导致亚裔男性所得到的特权是比白人男性少的，但是，亚裔男性得到的特权从客观意义上来讲，同样是比亚裔女性要多的。这种社会性个人身份与权力的交叉性让塔尔的故事变得更加的错综复杂，去了解她的人性需要一层一层的解刨。在讨论塔尔这部电��和这个角色的时候，我想从三个角度来解刨塔尔并且诠释我的理解，这三个角度分别是权利与性的关系，性别与性捕食者的相互作用，以及白人与殖民历史在这部电影里的呈现。

权利与性

权利与性在塔尔这部电影有着很明显并且直接的关系。在塔尔有了权力之后，她很了解并且非常擅长使用自己所用的权利去得到她所想要的性。

性别与性捕食者（Sexual predator)的相互作用

白人与殖民历史

1 note · View note

unknownuser19970330 · 1 year

Text

Tar (Rant)

A great character analysis if you are more into characters than the plot of the movie. The character is likely heavily influenced by many traditional powerful men, such as Harvey Weinstein. I find it very fascinating that they decided to make her lesbian and a sexual predator, the reduction of power dynamic with her being a woman makes it extra fascinating and creates another layer of intricacy and complexity within her character. If Tar’s character has simply been a man, the movie would lose its flavor a little and become a plain criticism but having a woman as a sexual predator and having women students as the prey brings a fake sense of equality in a way but continues to demonstrate the perpetuating power that is held by someone of high SES. Having her to work in Thailand is a fascinating plot choice as well given white people’s colonization history and even to these days white people abuse their privilege and power within Thailand and other Asian countries. Also having that scene where she goes to the massage parlor and she was able to select a woman message parlors from like 20 women was also very interesting I wonder why the director decided to put that scene in it. Is it because it again demonstrates how Lydia Tar has came from the bottom of being selected as a woman back when she was a young conductor? And once she got the power she decided to abuse it and internalized the power play, and that scene made her remember how she was likely being chosen and selected as a woman?

why did they decide to include Petra as a part of the plot? Is it to allow the portrayal of cancel culture and induce empathy within the audience or simply wanting to add the complexity within the character? It was also interesting with Sharon’s dialogue about how Petra is the only non-transactional relationship Lydia has ever had in her life and also how Lydia used Sharon to understand the rules of orchestra and in a way I wonder if Sharon was ever abusing that power dynamic as well. Possibly Lydia is simply repeating the power dynamic and the same system that she was previously in. And also the cinematography, I love how the camera angle films the orchestra in relation to conductor Lydia Tar, it is such a direct and visual way of demonstrating the power dynamic. The conductor has the power has the control as to how the performance would flow, she even has the control of every single orchestra member. And I also wanted to talk about the ending, her narcissistic tendency truly remained consistent. It started from the denial and distortion of reality in relation to the reports that were filed against her, she assumed that she would go to the states and come back to Berlin as if nothing has ever happened, and even in the last scene she was conducting for an entertainment ride (Idek what it was) she continued to act so prideful. The movie was a lil long tho feel like it could have been shorter

0 notes

unknownuser19970330 · 1 year

Text

刘慈欣塑造的角色和世界观是带着他自己的刻板印象的。他对女性这个性别的理解相对比较狭隘并且包括一定的偏见，若你感兴趣的话可以去重新读一下书里关于女性角色的形容和塑造，我现在从书里举例子的话他所用过的一些形容词有：纯洁娇嫩，百合花，轻柔稚嫩，孩子气，天真无邪，稚气，柔软高兴得像孩子一样，亚洲淑女，娇小，清丽之中还有一种她这样的女作者所没有的简洁和成熟。刘慈欣不一定厌女，但他所形容的女性和塑造的女性角色相比于别的作家所塑造的角色更偏向扁平化（叶文洁是他唯一塑造成功的角色在我的个人看法里）。但是相对来讲跟别的作者比，刘慈欣的弱项不仅是塑造女性角色，总的来说，他塑造角色也非常弱，所有的角色都是他用来讲故事的工具。如果你看一些优秀的作家，比如说冰与火之歌系列的作家乔治雷蒙德理查德��丁，你会发现他的每一个角色塑造的不扁平，每个角色有自己的动力和理性，并且每个角色的动力和心理学和故事的推进是互相促进的，刘慈欣的角色塑造更多的是处于一种他对男性女性的偏见，并且把角色作为工具来推进故事前进。

1 note · View note

unknownuser19970330 · 1 year

Text

Women talking/女人们的谈话：Rant

I love movies that are subtle in their storytelling and this movie is most definitely one of those, Power of the dog and Tar have been my favorites for their ability to illustrate someone’s past story or even emotional experience through visuals, dialogue, and extremely subtle acting. Women talking achieved it astoundingly through its illustration of sexual assault. Statistically, men writers often like to portray sexual assault of women as accurately as possible ( or not exactly accurate even depending on your pov open to debate), regardless of what their intention is (good or bad), sometimes it provokes more fear, numbing emotions, or even fetishization if you really want to argue it. I would give these creators benefits of doubt and say that their goals are to create empathy and a sense of understanding, but this movie was able to achieve so without the gruesome process and visual scenes, with the use of score, incredible acting, and cinematography the movie tells you how traumatizing and how emotionally impactful sexual assaults are, while being extremely respectful.

The movie's commentary on the impact of patriarchy has on men’s emotional experience. That scene with Claire Foy and Ben Whishaw, first of all fucking incredible on the use of subtleness, when Claire foy asked ben’s character on why he has a gun, Ben’s acting and change of facial expression immediately allows you to know that he probably has the gun so he can kill himself and that one scene illustrates patriarchy’s negative impact on men so accurately and perfectly and so incredibly emotionally (that scene ruined my fucking eye makeup), the focus on masculinity in patriarchy deprives of men on different expression of gender, and deprive them of emotional connections and expression of emotions, and emotions are basic human instincts, how do you view a society format that deprives a gender of emotional expression? And I just love how that scene also reflects that men’s suicide rate is higher than women, even tho women have higher rate of depression.

I am fascinated by how they have divided the women into three groups: stay and fight, leave, and stay but do nothing. This separation shows how women are affected very different under patriarchy, and this not only applies to gender inequality, but racial inequality as well. When an individual is oppressed by an overarching system, every individual is affected very differently (for example, asian people are probably affected very differently from black people). Being mindful that this movie has a religion component, and I lack experience in understanding this part as I am atheist, I would like to write down my opinions on how it reflects women within patriarchy. Women within a patriarchal society can be split into the three groups: stay and fight can be associated to the "angry feminists" aka "女拳" within the context of Chinese society, these women are not necessarily dismantling the current patriarchy through a systematic manner, but rather they express their anger and frustration towards the patriarchal system without necessarily with a goal in mind. Stay and stay silent can be viewed as the women that has adopted internalized misogyny, 一个社会里融入并且identify with 男性社会下的女性规则的女性，例子包括 “绿茶婊”，“汉子婊”，“娇妻". I personally think that the group of women that choose to leave can be viewed very differently depending on one's view on feminism and perspective and experience, but in my personal opinion, I view women that choose to leave to be the women that are attempting to reform and actively dismantle the patriarchal system systematically. These women appear to be leaving because they are leaving the rules and the power that led to the establishment of the institution.

Rooney Mara's character has one piece of dialogue in discussing forgiveness within the patriarchal system. She said something along the line of "maybe we will learn things that will allow us to learn to forgive". I see this action in so many ways, and in the life of my clients. Sometimes, we learn our behavioral and thought pattern through leaving a relationship and process the relationship. By achieving so, we learn to adopt new ways of interacting with the world. Similarly, when we leave patriarchy, we are able to "leave" our immediate emotional reactions or autopilot behavior in response to patriarchal system. Only by doing so, we are able to learn about patriarchy through a third person view, and learn to dismantle it, or to forgive it through the understanding that men can also be victims of patriarchy. Through a combination of factors, maybe eventually women are able to forgive. However, this movie also emphasizes that forgiveness does not mean that they did not make a mistake. I think to this society and to a lot of people, forgiveness means to forget, or to mean that acknowledging that another person did not make a mistake. That is not true, men most definitely have made mistakes, and that women are able to forgive men, but it does not take away the fact that they made mistakes and have caused oppression to women.

The movie also explores the harm inflicted from women to women within a patriarchal system, specifically characterized by the scene of Jessie Buckley's character telling Mejal that "why are you special" when she has a panic attack (PTSD symptom) in response to the nightfall, which has been associated with her sexual assault. This reminds me of how mother and daughter often have such different relationship from mother and son, mother and daughter often hate each other while mother son love each other. Mother and daughter relationship are different because mother went through the same trauma but they managed to cope through them, and now they invalidate daughters' struggle without realizing that everyone has different biological vulnerability. Just because something does not hurt you the same way that it did to you, does not mean that they are not hurting right now. Similarly, Greta used to tell her daughter (Jessie Buckley's character) that she should stay in the abusive relationship, forgive that abusive husband one time after another. This type of "violence" continues to be inflicted on women, maybe less in Western society now, but it is still very much present within Chinese society. 例如当女儿的丈夫出轨了，母亲会说 “他只是犯下了所有男人可能会犯下的错误”，但是说这句话的母亲有错吗？可能有，但她的丈夫同样也是女儿的父亲，当初也出过轨啊。若女儿离开了丈夫，那这会给这位母亲带来什么样子的心理影响呢？

1 note · View note

unknownuser19970330 · 1 year

Text

三体Rant

Evidence that the writer does not like women, let’s say that the logic of him not liking women can be an assumption made by me, one argument can definitely be made is that he holds stereotypes towards women, and these stereotypes that he has towards women has led to the discussion of women in this book being associated with weak, emotional, and illogical

Cheng xin’s arc: argument—the gender of the character can be easily swapped, gender is not important in the arc, why is it that he emphasizes the woman gender identity, her beauty, and the earlier arc with the guy who bought her a star? This one specific part of arc simply does not contribute to the plot

Within Cheng xin’s arc, the repetitive emphasis on gender identity, the feminization of the future society, and the repeated emphasis between the failure for the society to defend against three body alien and the feminine emphasis, and words that specifically value and try to draw causal conclusions between the feminist and the failure. Let’s say that if it is not a causal conclusion, it is hard to argue that correlation and association relationship does not exist between the two given the repeated emphasis throughout this arc

Cheng Xin’s arc as a whole, with the specific emphasis on the guy who bought the planet. It’s a guy who has barely talked to her, but made on the assumption that it’s act is romantic. Is this not creepy? If a woman buys you a planet, and you only talked to this woman once and you talked to her out of pity possibly (you may argue that it’s not pity, but the evidence mostly suggests that it’s pity)

“Fatal mistakes” are made by two women in the book, Wenjie and Chengxin, you may argue that Wenjie did not make a fatal mistake from a subjective opinion (for example me, I would not argue wenjie made a mistake as my personal value lies in that human civilization is a piece of shit that should be eradicated? But this isn’t proof, proof can be listed as those comments that criticize wenjie letting aliens in, or you can present the prooof as the harm it has caused humanity wenjie’s decision has done)

Cheng xin and 维德 arc, you can tell from his assumption and his worldview that he def has audacity, the fact that wei de desdass just asked “give me everything you have and your authority and your reputation” and the fact that Cheng xin desdass gave him everything, even tho they both share the same goals, the lack of explanation on why this is a good idea and lack of explanation on why psychology of Cheng xin makes her an unsuitable person to take over this project makes 0 sense, it is reasonable to argue that writer has the simple assumption that women are not capable of projects like this (again showing his bias), if he truly is a good writer he would be able to dissect the psychology and explain so, there’s 0 evidence to why wei de would be a good candidate other than the fact that he appears “masculinity and persistent??” (Literally makes no sense)

Need more evidence on this thought: men and womens diff in logic in this book, women understand and believe peoples words, men choose to only believe in their own words and somehow that turns out better but in realistic world that’s not how it works, it’s almost demonstrated that if women listen to others it leads wrong outcome, parallel with men never listening to people?

Overall review so far

Great creativity that is backed up by solid science, I respect that amount of effort he put in in expanding every physics theory and uses the solid physics theory to support it. Apologize for the lack of vocab, but the plot is fascinating as he manages to provide the twists and turns unexpectedly that keeps you engaged

However, lots of aspects of books are written from his bias and you can tel.

Whenever he discusses the future of science and technology in psychology, it is heavily colored by his bias and lacks any empirical research support. Wth neuroscience he tried his best, it’s semi-accurate. When it comes to gender and technology and future interaction he def is bringing his bias in.

You can also tell that he lacks knowledge on the development and changes of humanity society and lacks knowledge on sociology, when he discusses how the society has changed in terms of politicians’ attitude, the 率真ness of危机纪元 and how that changed back to the previous 公元时代 during掩体纪元, he made 0 explanation as to how societal changes like this and cultural changes like this relates to the science and technology and finance changes within the society.

The writer also has a major flaws in the sense that a lot of things he 铺垫 for actually has no logic reasoning (星环城 arc）, it only was good because it had good end result. Arcs with women just have bad results, whereas arcs with men as main charaycers and what they are doing aren’t necessarily better but they just have better results which appears to make the process logical reasonable and good

Cheng xin VS 维德星环城arc reflects that in this man, there is no in between between choosing humanity and the “so called logic and rationality and violence”. Likely in the rest of the plot, he will make Cheng xin regret her decision again in choosing humanity, but there is in fact nothing wrong with Cheng xin choosing humanity and anti-war. In fact, if he is a good writer and truly has a rationality in supporting initiating war out of the motivation to venture into space, he should give better reasoning. Currently he did not explain the motivation well of developing light speed spacecraft other than viewing that as a way to violate humans right

To enter the space, the reasoning to state that staying in the solar system is jail makes no sense as well. This is an assumption that humans should have the right to venture into the space and believes that it’s the right thing, I think this is very much an emotional reasoning that he has. He will again use his patriarchal values and views and paint Cheng xin as making a mistake when in fact Cheng xin did not make a mistake in that moment as it is a valid reasoning to make a logical decision, but he will use a result oriented approach and paint Cheng Xin as making a mistake

1 note · View note