Academy Awards 2017 - Oscar Night: In the Pale Moonlight

[Relic]

Just now, polishgenius said:

But since there is no correlation, negative or otherwise, between looks and intelligence 

This is an interesting article about the perception of correlation between looks and intelligence. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3469615/Blinded-beauty-Good-looking-people-seen-intelligent-views-skewed-attractiveness-halo.html

"there were high correlations between perceptions of attractiveness and perceptions of intelligence, conscientiousness, and academic performance, likely reflecting the strength of the attractiveness halo, as well as the similarities among these perceived competence measures."

I'm not particularly married to my statement about Hollywood vapidness, and am open to being totally wrong despite my 35 years of life in America telling me otherwise. However, i don't really want to discuss that topic anymore, but i AM interested in learning more about your above statement, if you feel like pming me some links. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I really liked Arrival.

Arrival was a good movie, but I don't think it should have been considered for best picture. 

4 hours ago, Relic said:

I can't be assed about the Academy Awards,  haven't paid them any mind since the pile of trash that was Gladiator won beat picture.

Take.

It.

Back!!!

[polishgenius]

13 minutes ago, Relic said:

However, i don't really want to discuss that topic anymore, but i AM interested in learning more about your above statement, if you feel like pming me some links.

 

I haven't got any links, because I've never even considered that it would be something that would be disagreed with. I can have a look for studies, if you really want, but not right now. The link you posted doesn't disprove what I said, though. Beautiful people being perceived as more intelligent than they actually are doesn't mean that beautiful people can't be intelligent (in fact, reading on, your article backs up my statement all on its own, with the follow-up study, the one with the Venn diagrams showing no overlap whatsoever between perceived attractiveness and actual academic performance).

[James Arryn]

57 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Meanwhile we live in a nightmare world where convicting sexual predators is heartbreakingly difficult and sometimes even impossible.  Let's hope we actually fix that someday, mkay.

 

We're getting OT, but I'd argue that unless you're advocating flipping the burden of proof, the limitations aren't so much systemic as human/logical. As you say, it's very difficult, often impossible to convict in sexual assault, but that's because it often comes down to consent, and the same rules of logic apply; it's very hard to prove a negative. It's very hard to prove that consent wasn't given, and so it often can't be, just like it often can't be proven that someone did not commit a crime. Issues like consent or intent or w/e are inherently nebulous.

Anything that deals with that kind of intangible is going to be, by definition, hard to prove. Which is why, for example, the fact that attempted murder has an even lower prosecution/conviction rate than sexual assault. Unless we actually want to get to a place where we're looking up at the rigorous burden of proof used at Salem, it's sadly going to be that way so long as humans work the way they do, and I can't see any systemic solutions that don't invert our principle of law.

(Edit: to distinguish, I can see lots of social changes that can make a difference w/regards to perception, slut shaming, etc. Some of those are already making some difference. But not legal/systemic changes.)

Maybe if we trend towards more and more 'film everything' as in the U.K. it will help some, but most assaults happen outside of those parameters anyway, so dunno. Meanwhile, the world where intangibles are hard to prove might be a nightmare, but history does have examples of societies where being accused was the bulk of being found guilty, and they have uncomforting names like The Terror. Which is why ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat has formed the basis for virtually every liberal legal system going back to the Romans, and incorporated into every human rights declaration. Flipping it is kind of a big deal, unless you're nostalgic for medieval rule of law.

But, maybe a better approach; what is your proposed solution?

 

 

[James Arryn]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Arrival was a good movie, but I don't think it should have been considered for best picture. 

Take.

It.

Back!!!

Yeah, Relic...what's your beef with Gladiator? Undoubtedly bad history, but as a movie it ticks  most boxes. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

The article seems like it makes some pretty solid points, but none of it (and the article specifically says this) points to any deliberate hostility on part of either lead or the director. It's accused of the oblivious, thoughtless kind of racism and social oppression, which needs to be fought just as much as the other kind but shouldn't be lumped in and fought the same way because that helps no-one.

 Honestly, I think much of the criticisms regarding this film are as colorblind as the film itself. This is a nostalgic period piece that calls back to the Hollywood musicals of the 30's and 40's. Of course everybody is white. Could it have been more socially conscious? Absolutely. But it choose to be a Romantic Comedy, not a social statement. 

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

We're getting OT, but I'd argue that unless you're advocating flipping the burden of proof, the limitations aren't so much systemic as human/logical. As you say, it's very difficult, often impossible to convict in sexual assault, but that's because it often comes down to consent, and the same rules of logic apply; it's very hard to prove a negative. It's very hard to prove that consent wasn't given, and so it often can't be, just like it often can't be proven that someone did not commit a crime. Issues like consent or intent or w/e are inherently nebulous.

Anything that deals with that kind of intangible is going to be, by definition, hard to prove. Which is why, for example, the fact that attempted murder has an even lower prosecution/conviction rate than sexual assault. Unless we actually want to get to a place where we're looking up at the rigorous burden of proof used at Salem, it's sadly going to be that way so long as humans work the way they do, and I can't see any systemic solutions that don't invert our principle of law.

Maybe if we trend towards more and more 'film everything' as in the U.K. it will help some, but most assaults happen outside of those parameters anyway, so dunno. Meanwhile, the world where intangibles are hard to prove might be a nightmare, but history does have examples of societies where being accused was the bulk of being found guilty, and they have uncomforting names like The Terror. Which is why ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat has formed the basis for virtually every liberal legal system going back to the Romans, and incorporated into every human rights declaration. Flipping it is kind of a big deal, unless you're nostalgic for medieval rule of law.

But, maybe a better approach; what is your proposed solution?

 

 

This shit is systemic and starts from the very earliest stages of life with the poor behavior of baby boys being shrugged off as boys just being boys such that what's learned is that hitting or stealing or doing something without consent is jut a boy thing.  It works itself up from there. There's a huge cultural shift that needs to occur that has very little to do with changing burdens of proofs in the law.

In this specific topic and those related to it, a good solution is to stop rewarding predators and abusers.  Stop voting them for president, stop spending money on their art, and stop giving them fucking awards.  "Innocent until proven guilty" has to do with the criminal justice system.  I have zero qualms about social, political or economic consequences for those who abuse.  

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Honestly, I think much of the criticisms regarding this film are as colorblind as the film itself. This is a nostalgic period piece that calls back to the Hollywood musicals of the 30's and 40's. Of course everybody is white. Could it have been more socially conscious? Absolutely. But it choose to be a Romantic Comedy, not a social statement. 

Even RomComs can be social statements.  You'll find that a lot of people, especially POC, don't look back on the 30s and 40s with nostalgia.  The fact that you and many others do is abso-fucking-lutely a social and political statement.  It chooses to be a RomCom that whitewashes history and celebrates some nasty periods of time. It's no coincidence that nazi defenders are also defending this celebration of white supremacy.

 

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This shit is systemic and starts from the very earliest stages of life with the poor behavior of baby boys being shrugged off as boys just being boys such that what's learned is that hitting or stealing or doing something without consent is jut a boy thing.  It works itself up from there. There's a huge cultural shift that needs to occur that has very little to do with changing burdens of proofs in the law.

In this specific topic and those related to it, a good solution is to stop rewarding predators and abusers.  Stop voting them for president, stop spending money on their art, and stop giving them fucking awards.  "Innocent until proven guilty" has to do with the criminal justice system.  I have zero qualms about social, political or economic consequences for those who abuse.  

I edited before you responded, so I think I've addressed some of what you're saying, but if you're reserving this to social as opposed to legal changes, I don't have the same issue with it and agree changes can and ought to be made.

Logically I still think you're engaging in a lobster trap, ie 'unless they prove they didn't do it', etc. but the ramifications of error are different/lesser and might be offset by benefits, so I have less of an objection. 

[Cas Stark]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

The article seems like it makes some pretty solid points, but none of it (and the article specifically says this) points to any deliberate hostility on part of either lead or the director. It's accused of the oblivious, thoughtless kind of racism and social oppression, which needs to be fought just as much as the other kind but shouldn't be lumped in and fought the same way because that helps no-one.

Why can't the director be nostalgic for "Old Hollywood Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers/Musicals" without having to address any/all/some real life issues around race/sex/gender/whatever from that time period?  Not every piece of art has to be a political statement.  It should be okay to be nostalgic about some aspects of the past without being brow beaten that you're not addressing the problems.  Escapist entertainment should not be criticized for being escapist entertainment.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Even RomComs can be social statements.  You'll find that a lot of people, especially POC, don't look back on the 30s and 40s with nostalgia.  The fact that you and many others do is abso-fucking-lutely a social and political statement.  It chooses to be a RomCom that whitewashes history and celebrates some nasty periods of time. It's no coincidence that nazi defenders are also defending this celebration of white supremacy.

But this film clearly wasn't. You've already stated that you haven't seen it, and that you won't see it, so I don't believe you can hope comment on it with any real sort of accuracy or insight. This film was a nostalgic callback to a bygone era of film. The Astaire/Rogers song and dance musicals of that day didn't address social issues. It's more than a bit silly to expect a film that is honoring those films to do the same. 

 Your insistence at labeling me a defender of Nazis for defending Free Speech is fucking tired and hackneyed as well as being completely and totally incorrect. I'm reporting you. Just a polite heads up.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But this film clearly wasn't. You've already stated that you haven't seen it, and that you won't see it, so I don't believe you can hope comment on it with any real sort of accuracy or insight. This film was a nostalgic callback to a bygone era of film. The Astaire/Rogers song and dance musicals of that day didn't address social issues. It's more than a bit silly to expect a film that is honoring those films to do the same. 

 Your insistence at labeling me a defender of Nazis for defending Free Speech is fucking tired and hackneyed as well as being completely and totally incorrect. I'm reporting you. Just a polite heads up.

I think you're correct movies don't all have to be "Schindler's List" but, clearly, there are people who disagree.

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But this film clearly wasn't. You've already stated that you haven't seen it, and that you won't see it, so I don't believe you can hope comment on it with any real sort of accuracy or insight. This film was a nostalgic callback to a bygone era of film. The Astaire/Rogers song and dance musicals of that day didn't address social issues. It's more than a bit silly to expect a film that is honoring those films to do the same. 

 Your insistence at labeling me a defender of Nazis for defending Free Speech is fucking tired and hackneyed as well as being completely and totally incorrect. I'm reporting you. Just a polite heads up.

Report me all you want.

You stating that this film provides no social commentary is pretty much flipping the bird to all of the POC who have clearly commented on the social and political statements this film makes.  I see you also think those voices aren't worth listening to.

Perhaps none of the artists intended the commentary, but that doesn't mean commentary doesn't exist.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think you're correct movies don't all have to be "Schindler's List" but, clearly, there are people who disagree.

Yeah, I agree. This film could have taken that angle (or even just bothered to address it) and it may have been better for it. That said, it clearly wasn't going for that tone.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Report me all you want.

You stating that this film provides no social commentary is pretty much flipping the bird to all of the POC who have clearly commented on the social and political statements this film makes.  I see you also think those voices aren't worth listening to.

Perhaps none of the artists intended the commentary, but that doesn't mean commentary doesn't exist.  

It was a silly little RomCom that centered on song and dance musicals. If you're looking to that sort of subject matter to supply social commentary, then I think you're looking in the wrong place.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think you're correct movies don't all have to be "Schindler's List" but, clearly, there are people who disagree.

Art tells a certain story to the audience.  Sometimes the story it tells isn't what's intended.  Perhaps none of the artists involved in La La Land intended to tell a story that whitewashes history and celebrates white supremacy, but that's what plenty of people saw.  

My particular problem as it relates to this thread is with Emma Stone, a person who can no longer deny intentionally choosing roles that are hostile to POC, especially WOC.

[polishgenius]

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Why can't the director be nostalgic for "Old Hollywood Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers/Musicals" without having to address any/all/some real life issues around race/sex/gender/whatever from that time period?  Not every piece of art has to be a political statement.  It should be okay to be nostalgic about some aspects of the past without being brow beaten that you're not addressing the problems.  Escapist entertainment should not be criticized for being escapist entertainment.

I don't think the film has to directly address the issues but when it trips over some of them, that should be talked about. I don't think the people who make it should be brow-beaten or accused but the discussion of why things about it might be problematic is healthy to have.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I agree. This film could have taken that angle (or even just bothered to address it) and it may have been better for it. That said, it clearly wasn't going for that tone.

I would think injecting some kind of social commentary on the injustices that existed in the 30s and 40s would be a jarring out of place element in a frothy romantic comedy musical tribute to the frothy romantic musical comedies of that era. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I would think injecting some kind of social commentary on the injustices that existed in the 30s and 40s would be a jarring out of place element in a frothy romantic comedy musical tribute to the frothy romantic musical comedies of that era. 

Yeah, that was pretty much my point. I suppose it could have, but to expect it to is a bit silly methinks.

[Dr. Pepper]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It was a silly little RomCom that centered on song and dance musicals. If you're looking to that sort of subject matter to supply social commentary, then I think you're looking in the wrong place.

Oh, I'm sorry, are we only allowed to look at certain pieces or art or entertainment when discussing commentary and other things that influence our social climate?  So celebrations of white supremacy is off the table if it's a romcom?  What about comics?  Please, Massah, tell me what we POC are allowed to talk about and comment on.  

This film wasn't some poor performing romcom people barely saw.  It won awards throughout the circuit.  Forgive us for commenting on it.