Did you have one specific in mind?
Yes rape almost always is used exploitatively, as a plot device for a heroic third party. See almost every episode of L&O:SVU. In these movies, which I’ve seen referred to as “flamethrower feminism,” the violence done to a woman serves to convince her that she has no one to depend upon but herself.
In many of his movies, a female protagonist is shown to rely upon herself to right wrongs that may have been done her. In “The Reckless Moment,” one of the movies that inspired “Far from Heaven,” a mother comes to the defense of her daughter.
I’m not sure why, well I do, because I highlighted them and googled them, I have specific directors quoted, and discourse seems to want to use that as a quote.
My question to you has been about the criticism of misogyny that you claim.
From googling them it seems as though it is about strong, powerful women, and googling them does not bring up any of these accusations that you say are many.
Did you have an example, or maybe, many examples, to make your point, or are you expecting me to do all the work here to try to figure out what your point is in the first place?
Regarding the OP, it is my opinion that when dealing with bigotry in film or other media, it’s possible to depict a character accurately while condemning the bad things they did. This can be done poorly or it can be done well. At its worst it’s some character giving a heavy - handed lecture to the protagonist, at its best it’s actually showing the damage s/he caused. I can see these issues taking a backseat to whatever the story is about, but you can’t really be true to the character if you don’t address those things in some way.
The most obvious example that springs to mind is Hamilton. I didn’t see it right away but people I knew were treating Lin Manuel Miranda like the second coming of liberal Christ. Lately, it’s taken all kinds of heat because it barely mentions slavery. I guess since all the actors are POC we know it’s not really racist, but it does beg the question why, if Miranda wanted to lift up the voices of POC, he did not address slavery in any substantive way.
Either way, I found the musical underwhelming. Sorry.
And that is misogynistic how?
I’m expecting you to do minimal work, like being familiar with the movies we’re talking about. Absent that, I’m not sure what’s at issue here. It’s one thing to discuss the interpretation of a work of art with someone who’s seen it; otherwise it seems like a one sided conversation.
You are the one making a claim here. I don’t see why it is on me to do work to substantiate it.
You said that many criticized these works as being misogynistic, I’m just asking you to point this out. I am not seeing it.
But, if you don’t want to back your claim, I can’t make you.
Technically, Schindler’s List…
♫ Springtime for Hitler and Germany… ♫
I think the OP’s question is really just: Does a biopic have to be “warts and all,” or can it leave out the “dark side” of its subject? Must it show the person’s despicable or regrettable qualities?
I think I incline toward @Chronos’s point of view, that it depends on whether those qualities are inextricably intertwined with the reason why the person is famous.
As the general culture has evolved, today the safe answer is “yes”. Otherwise you expose yourself to accusations of whitewashing or of complicty by silence.
OTOH a competent screenwriter should be able to effectively portray the accomplishments and the moral failings of the person without having to resort to dismissing either or slapping us in the face with “this is how you should feel about this!!”.
And if course, yes - is it inexorably a part of the person and of the story? Because from the OP question, we’re talking biopics, as opposed to works in which the person is shown in the context of one event or incident in which they played a specific role. Biopics are centered on that person and about what makes them tick and how they went through through some or all of their major achievements or defining life events. So you do need to fill out a more complete portrayal of their character, in both senses of the word.
I wouldn’t consider that to be a biopic. A historical drama, sure, but not a biopic. It would be on par with Downfall in that respect. Lots of screen time for Hitler, but fairly limited in scope, and hardly a sympathetic portrayal regardless.
And FWIW, I think your thread title is misleading. Depicting racism is not racist per se.
I remember certain people on Twitter and other review websites were PISSED that HBO’s Chernobyl mini-series included a bunch of Soviet “cliches” like the secret police, blind ideology, and cult of personality stuff claiming it was deliberately placed by Capitalist/Pro-Western writers to demean Communism/Socialism.
Everytime there’s been a major production that shows the “bad” side of the Soviet Union including the movie The Death of Stalin and the video game Company Of Heroes 2 you do get mini-outrages from people claiming it’s only included to make the West/Capitalism seem better in comparison as Propaganda.
The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel (1951) was largely positive, focusing on his military abilities and depicted him as apolitical. It was well received at the time, but later was criticized for minimizing Rommel’s Nazi connections.
I should have thought of Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds in which most of the Germans come off looking better than the psychopathic Americans. And Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes wasn’t a bad guy either.
Really, what a strange notion. Of course to make an anti-racism film, you have to depict the ugliness of racism. The art of the filmmakers is to combine this depiction with a story that shows what is wrong with it. It’s like saying that an anti-war film that shows the brutality of warfare to make its point is automatically militaristic. Or that every whodunnit movie propagates crime.
The issue is that you have claimed evidence something happened, but refused to provide evidence of it happening. You haven’t even linked a single example of someone calling the films you described “misogynist.”
I contend that they don’t exist or are very rare, so I can’t go find them. You say they’re common, so you should be able to find them easily. If you can’t, the only logical conclusion is that you were mistaken about their existence.
If you do find some, then we can continue the discussion. Maybe there is something there that I am unaware of. But I can’t discuss what I don’t know about.
True, and the alternative of having your film be simply preachy, an acted out sermon with caricature characters, is no good.
Yeah, I think this is an important distinction.