8 ms·

The OG Kermit was a beatnick frog poet! [1] Henson's Kermit had a kind of realism, he was kind but not cotton candy airhead. He showed contempt, anger, hints

by jasmer 4y ago

The OG Kermit was a beatnick frog poet! [1] Henson's Kermit had a kind of realism, he was kind but not cotton candy airhead. He showed contempt, anger, hints of cynicism and sarcasm sometimes even hints of what we would call 'violence' in todays parlance - but profoundly humanist. Every GenXer hates 'Barnie' the syruppy naive Dinosaur because he's an inauthentic fool, I think that says a lot about generations. The 'villains' in Gen X films used terrible language because they were 'bad guys' and all of them complicated. See 'Casino' for stellar peformances by Pesci/Deniro/Shrone Stone . You can't make that film today because of depictions of violence against women, ugly slurs. But it's clearly very good. But 'verbotten' for common creators who have to make their way through the industry. Barnie kids villains aren't allowed to be evil. I really think kids ought to have more rounded role models, and not infantile empty characters. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDXscFh5co https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hDXscFh5co

dragonwriter 4y ago
> You can't make that film today because of depictions of violence against women, ugly slurs. I assure you, both of those elements are found in recent film. > Barnie kids villains aren't allowed to be evil. I wasn't aware Barnie had villains; modern villains in kids shows are, in fact, often evil.
- jasmer 4y ago
  + Is there a post 2010 popular film where a violent boyfriend husband hits his wife? Wherein that woman antagonised the man, making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways, wherein both characters are presented as mostly bad, but also had elements of humanity? Wherein bad characters call each other (trigger warning / vulgar language) 'jew k*ke' and other terrible slurs? Maybe it was just an artifact of that era, or maybe I'm watching too much Netflix because even 'noir' is not 'noir'. + 'Barnie kids' villains, not Barnie's villains. Villains are barely disagreeable. Aside from maybe 'Hans Landa' here hasn't been a dark villain in a very long time. They are at best, sad charicatures of 'bad people'. 'Grand Moff Tarkin' from Star Wars is scarier than most bad guys, merely with his presence.
  - watwut 4y ago
    > Wherein that woman antagonised the man, making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways, wherein both characters are presented as mostly bad, but also had elements of humanity? If you want the movie to make audience feel like the woman is culpable for being beaten, then you are asking for waaay more then just "depiction of violence against women". You are asking for moral lesson that it is ok to hit women (or people) if they are annoying.
    - seventhtiger 4y ago
      No, they're asking for it to be morally complex and uncomfortable. The moral lesson is being given in your comment.
      - jasmer 4y ago
        Yes, this is my point, and the commenter is displaying exactly the moral tendency I'm wary of in cinema. Ironically, if you just watch the darn film, you see it for what it is. It's also not a morality tale, it's mostly just entertainment. They're all faulty people, and 'it's complicated'. You can hate them and sympathise with them at the same time. I suggest almost nobody has a problem with 'Casino' the way it is - I do however believe that it wouldn't get made today, for exactly the 'moral concerns' that the commenter indicated. Not only are studios risk averse, there's a culture of people who would just feel such a depiction immoral and 'problematic' as though everything we see is a morality tale, or, that these films directly influence behaviour a bit like Joe Rogan yapping on about vaccines when he probably should not be ... except that this is different. And possibly generation of writers who don't come across enough 'ugly people' in real life to provide fodder as writing material. We're just all becoming a bit too genteel without accents, colour, hints of ethnic orientation. Oh - and teeth. Look at the teeth. Everyone has perfect teeth on film. It's hilarious. It happened over a few years, but now it's unthinkable that someone doesn't have a perfect smile, even the bad guys. Compare it to British TV where they don't select for that and it becomes obvious. The baddies had braces and definitely use 'Crest Strips' and god forbid they don't smoke or drink coffee!
digitailor 4y ago
Disney’s 2021 “Cruella,” based on the 101 Dalmatians franchise, has a main villain who tries to kill her own daughter. Lot of complexity there. Great film.

by jasmer 4y ago

dragonwriter 4y ago

> You can't make that film today because of depictions of violence against women, ugly slurs. I assure you, both of those elements are found in recent film. > Barnie kids villains aren't allowed to be evil. I wasn't aware Barnie had villains; modern villains in kids shows are, in fact, often evil.

jasmer 4y ago
+ Is there a post 2010 popular film where a violent boyfriend husband hits his wife? Wherein that woman antagonised the man, making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways, wherein both characters are presented as mostly bad, but also had elements of humanity? Wherein bad characters call each other (trigger warning / vulgar language) 'jew k*ke' and other terrible slurs? Maybe it was just an artifact of that era, or maybe I'm watching too much Netflix because even 'noir' is not 'noir'. + 'Barnie kids' villains, not Barnie's villains. Villains are barely disagreeable. Aside from maybe 'Hans Landa' here hasn't been a dark villain in a very long time. They are at best, sad charicatures of 'bad people'. 'Grand Moff Tarkin' from Star Wars is scarier than most bad guys, merely with his presence.
- watwut 4y ago
  > Wherein that woman antagonised the man, making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways, wherein both characters are presented as mostly bad, but also had elements of humanity? If you want the movie to make audience feel like the woman is culpable for being beaten, then you are asking for waaay more then just "depiction of violence against women". You are asking for moral lesson that it is ok to hit women (or people) if they are annoying.
  - seventhtiger 4y ago
    No, they're asking for it to be morally complex and uncomfortable. The moral lesson is being given in your comment.
    - jasmer 4y ago
      Yes, this is my point, and the commenter is displaying exactly the moral tendency I'm wary of in cinema. Ironically, if you just watch the darn film, you see it for what it is. It's also not a morality tale, it's mostly just entertainment. They're all faulty people, and 'it's complicated'. You can hate them and sympathise with them at the same time. I suggest almost nobody has a problem with 'Casino' the way it is - I do however believe that it wouldn't get made today, for exactly the 'moral concerns' that the commenter indicated. Not only are studios risk averse, there's a culture of people who would just feel such a depiction immoral and 'problematic' as though everything we see is a morality tale, or, that these films directly influence behaviour a bit like Joe Rogan yapping on about vaccines when he probably should not be ... except that this is different. And possibly generation of writers who don't come across enough 'ugly people' in real life to provide fodder as writing material. We're just all becoming a bit too genteel without accents, colour, hints of ethnic orientation. Oh - and teeth. Look at the teeth. Everyone has perfect teeth on film. It's hilarious. It happened over a few years, but now it's unthinkable that someone doesn't have a perfect smile, even the bad guys. Compare it to British TV where they don't select for that and it becomes obvious. The baddies had braces and definitely use 'Crest Strips' and god forbid they don't smoke or drink coffee!

digitailor 4y ago

Disney’s 2021 “Cruella,” based on the 101 Dalmatians franchise, has a main villain who tries to kill her own daughter. Lot of complexity there. Great film.