Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Cassius Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But NO-ONE likes being stereotyped - it might be

> one way (a lazy one) to catagorise the world but

> that doesn't mean it's right.

> Some stereotypes have been responsible for

> discrimination until the recent past and probably

> still is (thinking of the straight woman sacked

> from a 'gay' nightclub and being called a

> 'breeder' - well she may well wish to have

> children and therefore that may well be a

> stereotyped view of her, but she was awarded

> several thousand pounds for it)


You are confusing stereotyping with abuse.


Stereotyping = "middle class" "blue collar" "Western" "cheerleader" "drama queen" for example. Die Hard is a typical "action movie". If you hear the phrase "action movie" you know what to expect. Same with "middle class". You have a pre-existing and continually reinforced understanding about what these descriptions mean.


Charlie

But that's exactly the problem - people think they know how (for example) a middle class/working class person thinks/behaves/etc and may have inbuilt prejudices accordingly and the react to that person in an inappropriate way - when the reality is usually far away from that


To take a more frivilous example - TV Guide magazines categorize films (as you point out) as "thriller", "action", "romance" etc


That in no way tells you if they are any good. But if you allow categories/stereotypes to influence your thinking you will dismiss a potential classic in favour of a shite preference...


Only by discarding prejudices/stereotypes/categories can we make progress as a species.... *sigh* once again, only in my opinion of course


And Mockney - ANY excuse with you isn't it??

If we didn't have them, we'd invent them so that we could swiftly judge things we have no knowledge of. "I'm not watching that. It's soppy romantic shit" "you haven't seen it" "I don't need to see it."


We all do it. Pre-judge stuff we have no experience of, based on our experience of what we consider to be related. "I don't like hot food" "I don't like cheese" "I don't like westerns" "I don't like the north" "I don't like woopsies" "I looove woopsies" etc etc.


Anyway, the film is cool.


Charlie

having had a good old chuckle at this thread, I wil lfinally weigh in on Charlie's side. I think they're just useful categories rather than stereotyping.

That said I really can't think of many chick flicks I've been able to stomach. Love Actually vies with Contact and Forrest Gump in my book as the worst films ever made.

pffft


If they were useful categories then why can't a single video store actually agree on what constitutes each one...


But it IS a film I want to see (based on the Coen's previous work if nothing else) and I'm now going to read the book as well


on the subject of categories - can I have one for "The Wire" please?

after some of the confessions on this public forum, I don't think you have anything to worry about Char1ie!


Crime Drama? Hmmm - I can imagine that putting some people off, and dissapointing others who are used to CSI et al


Chick Flick? Well Bubbs fits the romantic, swarthy hero steretype I'll grant you...

I suppose ascribing meaning to concepts is how the human brain works and we can?t escape it. Here are a few examples that we would all be a bit stuck without.


abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz

1234567890

!??$%^&*()_+?`,.;?#/?:@~[]{}


DICLAIMER: It is in no way the author?s intention to force any stereotypes upon the above mentioned symbols or infringe upon said symbols? freedom of choice as pertains to their right to self determination over the meaning of the meaning ascribed to them.



I agree re. the Coen brothers. Their films are always worth watching.

Apart from Millers Crossing. And that one with John Goodman (or is it Candy? I get confused) sitting in a hotel room with a typewriter.


Good ones outnumber bad:

Big Lebowski

Fargo

Blood Simple (totally excellent!)

The one with George Clooney as a hillbilly (uh oh, there I go again)



Charlie

Strange, I loved Miller's Crossing, it's honestly almost the perfect package.

I don't go for all their films, but Fargo is absolute class.


Hated the Ladykillers, not so keen on O Brother, Man Who wasn't there was good, but...

Raisin' Arizona though .. weeeeeeeee :D

I'm a big Miller's Crossing fan but was never keen on Barton Fink.


I keep thinking as I get older that I "get" the Coen's more, so I give it another go - and no, it's still no good


Hudsucker is an oddity - was meant to be the big studio push but it was always too oddball for that. Not one of their best but not bad


The A list for me is:

Blood Simple

Rasining Arizone

Millers Crossing

Fargo

Big Lebowski

Oh Brother (juuuust about)


I can watch Big Lebowski any day, any number of times.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I have no agenda just a simple response expressing my thoughts and experience.  
    • Just as one example, the grass in a least some of  the tree pits in Ulverscroft Road appears to have been sprayed. If it's not the council who has done it, then I wonder if someone is trying to kill the trees 😭 although I doubt if that would work, as the council have sprayed tree pits in the past (ignoring handwritten notices by my then very young grandchildren asking them not to spray as they had sowed flower seeds there) 🤬 Grass in the pavement nearby appears to have been neither sprayed nor scraped out. I'm quite confused.
    • They aren't. They are removing them manually, scraping and cutting them out. I've seen them doing it on my road and surrounding roads. I can't imagine that they would have different methods in different parts of East Dulwich.
    • I see. But as I read it, Tesco would still need the agreement of the owners/ leaseholder to submit proposals, so would need Poundland’s cooperation? I suppose we’ll have to wait while this plays out. There’s applications re this site on the Southwark planning portal dating back over 70 years. In 1954, Woolworth’s applied to convert the original 4 shops here (Nos 29-35) into one Woolies but the council refused because the flats above the shops would be lost and there was a local housing shortage following the war. Small businesses being displaced by big chains on Lordship Lane was already a trend back then.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...