#social issues movies

[votermood]

सिनेमा, समाज और राजनीति का एक अनकहा गठबंधन राजनीतिक लाभ को छुपाकर राष्ट्रीय हित को दर्शाने वाली कहानी क्या समाज के लिए इतनी ज़रूरी है? राज्य कुछ फ़िल्मों को कर से छूट क्यों देते हैं?

परदे पर चलने वाली कहानियों को समाज हित में टैक्स-फ्री करने के पीछे विवादित कहानियाँ पर एक तर्क।

[agnesandhilda]

watched conclave last night and then read the wikipedia entry for the book and now I'm wondering about the category ten shitstorm that a publicly intersex pope would cause

[mabbbish]

wonderful day to remember ninjago has a canon highschool au

[99monochrome]

Hoody shit William afton??

[catherine-sketches]

Thinking about Charles Xavier, who is simultaneously aware of everyone but at the same time not because if he was himself to the fullest people find him upsetting and rude and nosy

Thinking about his unshakable sense of morality, right and wrong and justice that he formed at the age of 9 and has kept ever since, with modifications along the years but those core values remain

Thinking about how the overstimulation of a thousand voices in his head drove him to self medicate to the point of nearly addiction

Thinking about how he has difficulty reading people when his power is not in use, ending up saying the worst things without meaning to upset no one

Thinking about how everyone should be “mutant and proud” except Charles over there that is too passing to be a mutant but too weird to be a human and simultaneously his mutation, the way his brain is fucking wired, is too inconvenient for everyone around him mutant and human alike to accept

Charles Xavier they would never make me hate you. You and your autism telepathy

[dailyanarchistposts]

III. Toward an Anarchist Film Theory

In his article “What is Anarchist Cultural Studies?” Jesse Cohn argues that anarchist cultural studies (ACS) can be distinguished from critical theory and consumer-agency theory along several trajectories (Cohn, 2009: 403–24). Among other things, he writes, ACS tries “to avoid reducing the politics of popular culture to a simplistic dichotomy of ‘reification’ versus ‘resistance’” (ibid., 412). On the one hand, anarchists have always balked at the pretensions of “high culture” even before these were exposed and demystified by the likes of Bourdieu in his theory of “cultural capital.” On the other hand, we always sought ought and found “spaces of liberty — even momentary, even narrow and compromised — within capitalism and the State” (ibid., 413). At the same time, anarchists have never been content to find “reflections of our desires in the mirror of commercial culture,” nor merely to assert the possibility of finding them (ibid.). Democracy, liberation, revolution, etc. are not already present in a culture; they are among many potentialities which must be actualized through active intervention.

If Cohn’s general view of ACS is correct, and I think it is, we ought to recognize its significant resonance with the Foucauldian tertia via outlined above. When Cohn claims that anarchists are “critical realists and monists, in that we recognize our condition as beings embedded within a single, shared reality” (Cohn, 2009: 413), he acknowledges that power actively affects both internal (subjective) existence as well as external (intersubjective) existence. At the same time, by arguing “that this reality is in a continuous process of change and becoming, and that at any given moment, it includes an infinity — bounded by, situated within, ‘anchored’ to the concrete actuality of the present — of emergent or potential realities” (ibid.), Cohn denies that power (hence, reality) is a single actuality that transcends, or is simply “given to,” whatever it affects or acts upon. On the contrary, power is plural and potential, immanent to whatever it affects because precisely because affected in turn. From the standpoint of ACS and Foucault alike, then, culture is reciprocal and symbiotic — it both produces and is produced by power relations. What implications might this have for contemporary film theory?

At present the global film industry — not to speak of the majority of media — is controlled by six multinational corporate conglomerates: The News Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, Viacom, Time Warner, Sony Corporation of America, and NBC Universal. As of 2005, approximately 85% of box office revenue in the United States was generated by these companies, as compared to a mere 15% by so-called “independent” studios whose films are produced without financing and distribution from major movie studios. Never before has the intimate connection between cinema and capitalism appeared quite as stark.

As Horkheimer and Adorno argued more than fifty years ago, the salient characteristic of “mainstream” Hollywood cinema is its dual role as commodity and ideological mechanism. On the one hand, films not only satisfy but produce various consumer desires. On the other hand, this desire-satisfaction mechanism maintains and strengthens capitalist hegemony by manipulating and distracting the masses. In order to fulfill this role, “mainstream” films must adhere to certain conventions at the level of both form and content. With respect to the former, for example, they must evince a simple plot structure, straightforwardly linear narrative, and easily understandable dialogue. With respect to the latter, they must avoid delving deeply into complicated social, moral, and philosophical issues and should not offend widely-held sensibilities (chief among them the idea that consumer capitalism is an indispensable, if not altogether just, socio-economic system). Far from being arbitrary, these conventions are deliberately chosen and reinforced by the culture industry in order to reach the largest and most diverse audience possible and to maximize the effectiveness of film-as-propaganda.

“Avant garde” or “underground cinema,” in contrast, is marked by its self — conscious attempt to undermine the structures and conventions which have been imposed on cinema by the culture industry — for example, by presenting shocking images, employing unusual narrative structures, or presenting unorthodox political, religious, and philosophical viewpoints. The point in so doing is allegedly to “liberate” cinema from its dual role as commodity and ideological machine (either directly, by using film as a form of radical political critique, or indirectly, by attempting to revitalize film as a serious art form).

Despite its merits, this analysis drastically oversimplifies the complexities of modern cinema. In the first place, the dichotomy between “mainstream” and “avant-garde” has never been particularly clear-cut, especially in non-American cinema. Many of the paradigmatic European “art films” enjoyed considerable popularity and large box office revenues within their own markets, which suggests among other things that “mainstream” and “avant garde” are culturally relative categories. So, too, the question of what counts as “mainstream” versus “avant garde” is inextricably bound up in related questions concerning the aesthetic “value” or “merit” of films. To many, “avant garde” film is remarkable chiefly for its artistic excellence, whereas “mainstream” film is little more than mass-produced pap. But who determines the standards for cinematic excellence, and how? As Dudley Andrews notes,

[...] [C]ulture is not a single thing but a competition among groups. And, competition is organized through power clusters we can think of as institutions. In our own field certain institutions stand out in marble buildings. The NEH is one; but in a different way, so is Hollywood, or at least the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Standard film critics constitute a sub-group of the communication institution, and film professors make up a parallel group, especially as they collect in conferences and in societies (Andrews, 1985: 55).

Andrews’ point here echoes one we made earlier — namely, that film criticism itself is a product of complicated power relations. Theoretical dichotomies such as “mainstream versus avant-garde” or “art versus pap” are manifestations of deeper socio-political conflicts which are subject to analysis in turn.

Even if there is or was such a thing as “avant-garde” cinema, it no longer functions in the way that Horkheimer and Adorno envisaged, if it ever did. As they themselves recognized, one of the most remarkable features of late capitalism is its ability to appropriate and commodify dissent. Friedberg, for example, is right to point out that flaneurie began as a transgressive institution which was subsequently captured by the culture industry; but the same is true even of “avant-garde” film — an idea that its champions frequently fail to acknowledge. Through the use of niche marketing and other such mechanisms, the postmodern culture industry has not only overcome the “threat” of the avant-garde but transformed that threat into one more commodity to be bought and sold. Media conglomerates make more money by establishing faux “independent” production companies (e.g., Sony Pictures Classics, Fox Searchlight Pictures, etc) and re-marketing “art films” (ala the Criterion Collection) than they would by simply ignoring independent, underground, avant-garde, etc. cinema altogether.

All of this is by way of expanding upon an earlier point — namely, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the extent to which particular films or cinematic genres function as instruments of socio-political repression — especially in terms of simple dichotomies such as “mainstream” versus “avant-garde.” In light of our earlier discussion of Foucault, not to speak of Derrida, this ought not to come as a surprise. At the same time, however, we have ample reason to believe that the contemporary film industry is without question one of the preeminent mechanisms of global capitalist cultural hegemony. To see why this is the case, we ought briefly to consider some insights from Gilles Deleuze.

There is a clear parallel between Friedberg’s mobilized flaneurial gaze and what Deleuze calls the “nomadic” — i.e., those social formations which are exterior to repressive modern apparatuses like State and Capital (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987: 351–423). Like the nomad, the flaneur wanders aimlessly and without a predetermined telos through the striated space of these apparatuses. Her mobility itself, however, belongs to the sphere of non-territorialized smooth space, unconstrained by regimentation or structure, free-flowing, detached. The desire underlying this mobility is productive; it actively avoids satisfaction and seeks only to proliferate and perpetuate its own movement. Apparatuses of repression, in contrast, operate by striating space and routinizing, regimenting, or otherwise constraining mobile desire. They must appropriate the nomadic in order to function as apparatuses of repression.

Capitalism, however one understands its relationship to other repressive apparatuses, strives to commodify flaneurial desire, or, what comes to the same, to produce artificial desires which appropriate, capture, and ultimately absorb flaneurial desire (ibid., esp. 424–73). Deleuze would agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that the contemporary film industry serves a dual role as capture mechanism and as commodity. It not only functions as an object within capitalist exchange but as an ideological machine that reinforces the production of consumer-subjects. This poses a two-fold threat to freedom, at least as freedom is understood from a Deleuzean perspective: first, it makes nomadic mobility abstract and virtual, trapping it in striated space and marshaling it toward the perpetuation of repressive apparatuses; and second, it replaces the free-flowing desire of the nomadic with social desire — that is, it commodifies desire and appropriates flaneurie as a mode of capitalist production.

The crucial difference is that for Deleuze, as for Foucault and ACS, the relation between the nomadic and the social is always and already reciprocal. In one decidedly aphoristic passage, Deleuze claims there are only forces of desire and social forces (Deleuze & Guattari, [1972] 1977: 29). Although he tends to regard desire as a creative force (in the sense that it produces rather than represses its object) and the social as a force which “dams up, channels, and regulates” the flow of desire (ibid., 33), he does not mean to suggest that there are two distinct kinds of forces which differentially affect objects exterior to themselves. On the contrary, there is only a single, unitary force which manifests itself in particular “assemblages” (ibid.). Each of these assemblages, in turn, contains within itself both desire and various “bureaucratic or fascist pieces” which seek to subjugate and annihilate that desire (Deleuze & Guattari, 1986: 60; Deleuze & Parnet, 1987: 133). Neither force acts or works upon preexistent objects; rather everything that exists is alternately created and/or destroyed in accordance with the particular assemblage which gives rise to it.

There is scarcely any question that the contemporary film industry is subservient to repressive apparatuses such as transnational capital and the government of the United States. The fact that the production of films is overwhelmingly controlled by a handful of media conglomerates, the interests of which are routinely protected by federal institutions at the expense of consumer autonomy, makes this abundantly clear. It also reinforces the naivety of cultural studies, whose valorization of consumer subcultures appears totally impotent in the face of such enormous power. As Richard Hoggart notes,

Studies of this kind habitually ignore or underplay the fact that these groups are almost entirely enclosed from and are refusing even to attempt to cope with the public life of their societies. That rejection cannot reasonably be given some idealistic ideological foundation. It is a rejection, certainly, and in that rejection may be making some implicit criticisms of the ‘hegemony,’ and those criticisms need to be understood. But such groups are doing nothing about it except to retreat (Hoggart, 1995: 186).

Even if we overlook the Deleuzean/Foucauldian/ACS critique — viz., that cultural studies relies on a theoretically problematic notion of consumer “agency” — such agency appears largely impotent at the level of praxis as well.

Nor is there any question that the global proliferation of Hollywood cinema is part of a broader imperialist movement in geopolitics. Whether consciously or unconsciously, American films reflect and reinforce uniquely capitalist values and to this extent pose a threat to the political, economic, and cultural sovereignty of other nations and peoples. It is for the most part naïve of cultural studies critics to assign “agency” to non-American consumers who are not only saturated with alien commodities but increasingly denied the ability to produce and consume native commodities. At the same time, none of this entails that competing film industries are by definition “liberatory.” Global capitalism is not the sole or even the principal locus of repressive power; it is merely one manifestation of such power among many. Ostensibly anti-capitalist or counter-hegemonic movements at the level of culture can and often do become repressive in their own right — as, for example, in the case of nationalist cinemas which advocate terrorism, religious fundamentalism, and the subjugation of women under the banner of “anti-imperialism.”

The point here, which reinforces several ideas already introduced, is that neither the American film industry nor film industries as such are intrinsically reducible to a unitary source of repressive power. As a social formation or assemblage, cinema is a product of a complex array of forces. To this extent it always and already contains both potentially liberatory and potentially repressive components. In other words, a genuinely nomadic cinema — one which deterritorializes itself and escapes the overcoding of repressive state apparatuses — is not only possible but in some sense inevitable. Such a cinema, moreover, will emerge neither on the side of the producer nor of the consumer, but rather in the complex interstices that exist between them. I therefore agree with Cohn that anarchist cultural studies (and, by extension, anarchist film theory) has as one of its chief goals the “extrapolation” of latent revolutionary ideas in cultural practices and products (where “extrapolation” is understood in the sense of actively and creatively realizing possibilities rather than simply “discovering” actualities already present) (Cohn, 2009: 412). At the same time, I believe anarchist film theory must play a role in creating a new and distinctively anarchist cinema — “a cinema of liberation.”

Such a cinema would perforce involve alliances between artists and audiences with a mind to blurring such distinctions altogether. It would be the responsibility neither of an elite “avant-garde” which produces underground films, nor of subaltern consumer “cults” which produce fanzines and organize conventions in an attempt to appropriate and “talk back to” mainstream films. As we have seen, apparatuses of repression easily overcode both such strategies. By effectively dismantling rigid distinctions between producers and consumers, its films would be financed, produced, distributed, and displayed by and for their intended audiences. However, far from being a mere reiteration of the independent or DIY ethic — which, again, has been appropriated time and again by the culture industry — anarchist cinema would be self — consciously political at the level of form and content; its medium and message would be unambiguously anti — authoritarian, unequivocally opposed to all forms of repressive power.

Lastly, anarchist cinema would retain an emphasis on artistic integrity — the putative value of innovative cinematography, say, or compelling narrative. It would, in other words, seek to preserve and expand upon whatever makes cinema powerful as a medium and as an art-form. This refusal to relegate cinema to either a mere commodity form or a mere vehicle of propaganda is itself an act of refusal replete with political potential. The ultimate liberation of cinema from the discourse of political struggle is arguably the one cinematic development that would not, and could not, be appropriated and commodified by repressive social formations.

In this essay I have drawn upon the insights of Foucault and Deleuze to sketch an “anarchist” approach to the analysis of film — on which constitutes a middle ground between the “top-down” theories of the Frankfurt School and the “bottom-up” theories of cultural studies. Though I agree with Horkheimer and Adorno that cinema can be used as an instrument of repression, as is undoubtedly the case with the contemporary film industry, I have argued at length that cinema as such is neither inherently repressive nor inherently liberatory. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that the politics of cinema cannot be situated exclusively in the designs of the culture industry nor in the interpretations and responses of consumer-subjects. An anarchist analysis of cinema must emerge precisely where cinema itself does — at the intersection of mutually reinforcing forces of production and consumption.

[sentiniel]

hbomb's blast of james somerton really makes me think back to other older youtubers who have been doing their good work, performing critical research and analyses into niche fields who then had their work plagiarized from their videos and henceforth wanted to stop making content.

yeah and also they got pushback from the internet saying the degree of plagiarism they'd experienced is a made up problem.

this is a sideways post.

[cinemaobscura]

The New Year That Never Came | Anul Nou Care N-a Fost (2024) dir. Bogdan Mureșanu

[valerieality]

"im shifting to get dick idc 🤭" "hot take but permashifting is actually fine" "my s/o soo fine" "the easiest way to shift" omg idccccc your honor who gafff like come onnnn. please make this worth your time

[surrah698]

Work = Modern Day Slavery...

Take a second to think about it. If you didn't have to work, you'd probably spend your time creating something. ♥️

[softness-and-shattering]

Just need some background noise + mild curiosity = the second james cameron avatar movie.

Im 8 minutes in and 7 of those were voicover narration exposition dump about how he happy he is. He has locs, I dont remember if he did in the first movie.

"It took me a while to pick up the language but after a while it may as well have been english" 1. Offensive 2. Not written or checked by anyone even slightly bilingual. Thinking qnd even dreaming in a language does not make it "basucally the same as" ones mother tongue. Its a whole different language!

Anyway that was just the badly shoehorned in excuse to have the movie being in english and is immediatelly followed up by his Navi kids yelling at each other like human kids do. Cmon put some effort into your worldbuilding of this culture! The best insult you have is "penis face" and "but i dont wannna share"??? This is pathetic.

And the the sky people come back and bomb the place huge fire and we see jake and neytiri on a hill above the flame, no kids, nothing anout how they survived the inferno, jake is stony faced and neytiri is weeping and mildly upset. Not "i just lost my home.and children and vast swathes of forest where I live" upset, just like, the event I was looking forward to got cancelled upset.

And then A YEAR TIME JUMP.

Lazy prologue is lazy as fuccccckkkk.

[greggorylee]

this is me btw. if you even care

[toddtakefive]

btw todd’s reluctance to join the dps because he doesn’t want to read (which is then accommodated for) and is scared to put himself out there (which is also worked through) being read as todd not wanting to go AT ALL, and thus neil making the proper accommodations (“todd anderson, who prefers not to read, will keep the minutes of the meetings”) and encouraging him to step out of the box that stifles him being seen as ‘forceful’ or like he can’t take no for an answer makes me insane with rage

[dailyanarchistposts]

Bibliography & Footnotes

Andrews, D. (2000) “The ‘Three Ages’ of Cinema Studies and the Age to Come.” PMLA (115)3 (May): 341–51.

— . (1985) “Of Canons and Quietism: Dudley Andrews Responds to Jane Staiger’s ‘The Politics of Film Canons’.” Cinema Journal (25)1 (Fall): 55���61.

Arnheim, R. (1997) Film Essays and Criticism (B. Benthien., Trans.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

— . (1989) Film as Art. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Aronowitz, S. (1994) Roll Over Beethoven. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.

Baudry, J. (1986) “The Apparatus.” Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology: A Film Theory Reader (P. Rosen., Ed.). New York: Columbia University Press: 299–319.

Bazin, A. (1996) Bazin at Work: Major Essays and Reviews from the Forties and Fifties. (A. Piette., Trans.). New York: Routledge.

— . (1967) What is Cinema? (H. Gray., Trans.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bérubé, M. (1994) “Pop Goes the Academy: Cult Studs Fight the Power” Public Access: Literary Theory and American Cultural Politics. London: Verso.

Brantlinger, P. (1990) Crusoe’s Footprints. New York: Routledge.

Brunette P., & D. Wills. (1989) Screen/Play: Derrida and Film Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Cavell, S. (1981) Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cohn, J. (2009) “What is Anarchist Cultural Studies? Precursors, Problems and Prospects.” New Perspectives on Anarchism. Ed. N. Jun & S Wahl. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books: 403–24.

Deleuze, G. (1990) Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. (M. Joughin., Trans.). New York: Zone Books.

Deleuze, G., & F. Guattari. (1977) Anti — Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (R. Hurley, M. Seem, & H.R. Lame., Trans.). New York: Viking Press.

— . (1986) A Thousand Plateaus — Capitalism and Schizophrenia (B. Massumi., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

— . (1986) Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature (D. Polan., Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Deleuze, G., & C. Parnet. (1987) Dialogues (H. Tomlinson & B. Haberjam., Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.

Derrida, J. (1981) Positions (A. Bass., Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

— . (1978) Writing and Difference (A. Bass., Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

— . (1976) Of Grammatology (G.C. Spivak., Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

During, S., Ed. (1993) The Cultural Studies Reader. New York: Routledge.

Eiseinstein, S. (1969) The Film Sense and The Film Form. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Fiske, J. (1993) Power Plays, Power Works. New York: Verso.

Foucault, M. (2003) The Essential Foucault (P. Rabinow & N. Rose., Eds.). New York: The New Press.

— . (1995) Discipline and Punish (A. Sheridan., Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.

— . (1994) The Order of Things. New York: Vintage Books.

— . (1990) The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

— . (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge (A. Sheridan., Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

— . (1965) Madness and Civilization (R. Howard., Trans.). New York: Pantheon.

Frank, T. (2000) One Market Under God. New York: Anchor Books.

Friedberg, A. (1997) “Cinema and the Postmodern Condition.” Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film (L. Williams., Ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press: 59–86.

Gans, H. (1985) “American Popular Culture and High Culture in a Changing Class Structure.” Prospects: An Annual of American Cultural Studies 10: 17–37.

— . (1974) Popular Culture and High Culture. New York: Basic Books.

Grossberg, L. (1992) We Gotta Get Outta This Place. New York: Routledge.

Heath, S. (1976) “Narrative Space.” Screen (17)3: 68–112

Hoggart, R. (1995) The Way We Live Now. London: Chatto & Windus.

Horkheimer M., & T. Adorno. (1993) “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.” The Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. J. Cumming. New York: Continuum: 120–67.

Jay, M. (1997) Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Modern French Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kracauer, S. (1997) Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Leavis, F.R. (1952) Scrutiny: A Reprint, 20 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levine, L. (1988) Highbrow/Lowbrow: The Emergence of Cultural Hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Marcuse, H. (1964) One — Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.

May, T. (1994) The Political Philosophy of Poststructuralist Anarchism. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

McRobbie, A. (1994) Postmodernism and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge.

Metz, C. (1974) Language and Cinema. The Hague: Mouton.

— . (1973) “Current Problems of Film Theory” (D. Matias., Trans.). Screen 14:1–2: 40–88

Mitry, J. (1997) The Aesthetics and Psychology of Cinema (C. King., Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Mulhern, F. (1979) The Moment of Scrutiny. London: Verso.

Mulvey, L. (1975) “Visual Pleasure in the Narrative Cinema.” Screen (16)3: 6–18.

Polan, D. (1985) “The Critique of Cinematic Reason: Stephen Heath and the Theoretical Study of Film,” boundary (2)13,2/3 (Winter — Spring):157–71.

Staples, D. (1966–67) “The Auteur Theory Reexamined.” Cinema Journal 6: 1–7.

[1] For an excellent overview of formalism in film theory, see (Andrews, 2000: 341–51).

[2] See, for example, Leavis (1952). On Leavis’ dismissal of cinema and mass culture more generally, see Mulhern (1979).

[3] This position receives one of its fullest articulations in Marcuse (1964).

[4] For example, Barthesian semiotics, Althusserian Marxism, and Lacanian psychoanalysis.

[5] Of particular importance are Baudry (1986: 299–319), Heath (1976: 68–112), Metz (1973: 40–88; 1974), Mulvey (1975: 6–18).

[6] For example, statements about airplanes could not be uttered in the Middle Ages because the historical a priori condition necessary for the production, transmission, and intelligibility of such statements within discourse (viz., the actual existence of airplanes) was not yet satisfied.

[paigegonerogue]

Y’know what bugs me? When supermodels get cast as the Everyman in movies meant to critique beauty standards.

I see so many comments that are like “that’s the point, it’s never good enough” and I understand what you’re saying, but also like??? By casting supermodels aren’t you literally reinforcing the beauty standards you’re meant to critique??? By only showing Hollywood skinny ladies on screen aren’t you literally doing exactly what you’re satirizing??? By presenting only the prettiest people aren’t you still making the kids watching your movie feel bad about themselves??? Aren’t you still causing body issues and eating disorders and reinforcing beauty standards???

[wavesoutbeingtossed]

.