It was going so well before the sexist and racist shoehorning of 9, especially considering the whole plot of Hereditary is that the matriarch's goal was to murder and sacrifice her entire family.
Meh it's ok, the default white-man-bad trope is indeed tiresome and unimaginative but a slight fail in the context of a clever article is really not a big deal. It's also ok to poke fun at us now and then as well.
I chuckled out loud at that interpretation of Hereditary. It's a good point that the matriarch was horrifyingly evil but come on... that guy was by far the most boring character in that story. Also it's hilarious to think of anybody as coming out "on top" in that situation.
And let's be open to the possibility that it feeling like a trope might be an indicator of the situation being truly widespread. When you hear lots of people saying the same thing there's basically two responses: "oh, they're all infected by the same meme" or "hmm... maybe they all really have gone through similar situations..."
Most disturbing movie I've ever seen, by the way. Gave me nightmares for a solid week or two. For about 2 years after I would randomly flash onto a couple vivid scenes and it noticeably affect the rest of my day.
I have the same feeling with other horror movies. Which is why I stopped watching them around age 10. Is this the reaction you are going for? Or do you find them otherwise so enjoyable that this is the price you’re willing to pay?
Horror’s a wide genre. There are tons of sub-genres that can be anything from cheer-at-the-impressively-gruesome-practical-FX over-the-top-kills slasher, to Star Trek levels of symbolism and metaphor that aren’t meant to be “read” literally, to art film stuff that uses horror tropes and elements but may not even be scary, to cringe-to-your-bones body horror, to deep existential horror that makes all but the most jaded kinda wish they hadn’t watched it. And more.
Also, outright comedy horror, which works so well because scares are often adjacent to laughter. Similar tension release, which is what a lot of fans are there for.
You should spend ten minutes on Gab and see what tropes they have there. Hopefully they won't make you go "hmmm..." like the contemptible white male trope does.
I see your point, thanks for bringing it up. I guess what you're saying is that my position could be basicaly be interpreted as the old "well, maybe there's truth to the stereotype" line of reasoning, which is obviously very problematic. I guess the difference boils down to me believing that we white men are indeed privileged and you perhaps not believing that? Because that single belief really changes everything about the discussion. It's one thing to make this comment about myself from an assumed position of privilege, another to make it about others who are not usually bucketed into a position of privilege. Also, it seems to change the meaning when you quote me as "hmm..." versus the full quote, which was "hmm... maybe they all really have gone through similar situations..." There's a lot to unpack here but I've gotta get my day going and will have to leave it at that.
Hereditary’s one of the few widely-beloved horror films I’ve thought was kinda bad (I watch lots of horror). Most of it was really boring, except the last 15 minutes or so, which were laugh-out-loud hilarious, which I don’t think is what they were going for.
I loved the concept and a lot of the imagery but yeah the ending skewed towards funny for me rather than scary. in the same vein, i loved annihilation for the same reasons but that ending was funnier than it was disturbing.
Annihilation didn’t do that to me, but I can definitely see how it might if your head-space slips outside just the right range near the end. A lot of that could certainly read as funny, in that case.
I think Hereditary would be a great movie if the ending were completely different. I was never sure exactly what was real and I really enjoyed that. Then that ending pops up like it was spliced from something else. I'm not sure if "jumping the shark" or "showed the monster" fits better.
At this point I just chuckle through my moustache and recall the times it happened to me as I swirl some brandy and admire my hunting trophies from my studded leather armchair. Harrumph!
It's the same braindead mode of thinking that led Disney to re-interpret Snow White with the men in the movie being creepy and to deemphasize the main plotline where the stepmother is evil and sees her step-daughter as her competition.
Men, especially white men, are by-default bad and women have no agency unless they're overcoming men.
To be clear, you’re talking about Snow White and the huntsman, in which Snow White isn’t even the main character in favor of action huntsman Chris Hemsworth?
If you think a two-hour Mattel commercial is where the feminist discourse is right now, then feminism is off in the wilderness.
Then again, women are still overwhelmingly the largest consumer spending group and the CEO of Mattel is still a man.
Referencing the Barbie movie wrt feminism is about as laughable as the people who think Star Trek is some post-racial utopia -- even though the bad guys are still mostly dark-skinned and virtually every alien race is a monoculture.
Once upon a time, a woman accidentally pricked her finger over some fresh snow. Observing the sight, she thought, "how gruesome! But Snow White seems like a nice name, nevermind this completely irrelevant scene of blood on snow..."
Exactly. The previous points were interesting and I was about to share the article to an East-Asian friend that started a PhD recently. But being a White guy that point would just make it awkward to share it with her.
Fellow white guy here. Sharing the article might be a signal to this person that you're open to one day talking about race with them (when some kind of race-related situation inevitably comes up) and also that you can poke fun at your own position in society (or at least how many people view our position in society). The fact that you like this article enough to consider sharing it but are hesitating just because of #9 is a yellow flag to me. Obviously I don't know your history or situation but HN is all about honest inquiry and I humbly suggest this might be something worth looking into more.
Fellow white guy, are you aware that you're speaking form a position of privilege, that few will actually receive that signal as you intend, and the vast majority of "non-whites" will actually view you as foolish for making such comments because their native cultures teach self-respect? I think you need to do some research into how "white people" willingly denigrate themselves and contribute to their own mental health crises.
Definitely aware that I'm speaking from a position of privilege. Definitely aware that there's a chance that my intention is different from my impact. Still don't regret taking the risk to challenge the ideas in this thread.
> I think you need to do some research into how "white people" willingly denigrate themselves and contribute to their own mental health crises.
Thanks for the suggestion. I am aware of this idea but am open to looking at the situation more from this lens. What resources do you recommend for learning more?
Fair enough. You do say you're interested in honest inquiry, so I'll give you a few resources.
A first step is considering that difference can be accepted. "The Illusions of Egalitarianism" by John Kekes is a good place to start in understanding where an egalitarian approach falls short. Because many people in the world are religious, and religious belief shapes much action, you might also want to understand differences between religions, so I recommend "God Is Not One" by Stephen Prothero.
The subject of white denigration is itself polarizing among "white people", which demonstrates a certain white fragility, I suppose. One polarizing book which examines white denigration relative to other groups is "White Identity" by Jared Taylor. In my experience, polarizing books usually get at important points without fully arriving at the main conclusion, so I would recommend you read it carefully yet avoid prejudgement one way or the other until the very end. While I've skimmed its content out of curiosity, I haven't given it a careful read myself, so I'm not endorsing all its conclusions. That said, the main points appear well-sourced (over 1200 citations).
Grasping social understanding is important to understand the relationship between stereotypes and accuracy. On this, I recommend "Social Perception and Social Reality" by Lee Jussim. A key quote from that book is: "[According to the social science literature,] When a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs, perceivers’ expectations lead them to treat targets in accord with those expectations, and targets respond to that treatment in ways that confirm the originally erroneous expectation."
I don't understand why it would have been awkward. Whatever the flaws in the institution as a whole I'm sure she doesn't blame you for them personally. You have no reason to feel self-conscious about satire.
I can see it. Especially if he does have some romantic interest in her. There’s the worry if the subtext is that the reason I’m sending this whole article to you is about #9.
Just not enough upside for the potential downside.
Nobody said anything about a romantic interest. Most people’s relationship with people of the opposite gender are not romantic at all. Why would this be relevant to bring up?
It's relevant to bring up because he said it would make him feel awkward to send it. You'd be right if he didn't think it would be awkward to send and he had no romantic interest, even less awkward if he knew she had no romantic interest. But at this point the only thing we know is that he did feel awkward about sending it. Hence the relevance.
i see the relevance, but i don't see the problem, especially if he himself isn't in academia. he could convincingly argue that he isn't part of that mess and especially won't benefit from it.
I was trying not to spoil too much but the demon Paimon is a demon not a mediocre white man, the supposedly contemptible white male dies in pain and horror and his body is then used against his will, hardly a triumph.
for the purposes of satisfying the conditions this article is trying to adhere to it doesn't matter that it's the demon in the body now instead of the man, it matters that the male body was chosen over others.
however, if we do consider the demon, the movie has this to say about it:
1. A sentence underlined in pencil reads: "Paimon is Male, thus
covetous of a male human body."
2. ... We’ve corrected your first body and give you now this healthy male host. ...
maybe the author is trying to say something about the demons masculine preference (it is covetous of, not dependent on - it was in Charlie first) & how that relates to theirs and others experiences in academia when it comes to preferential treatment; and that just male-ness seems to be important absent of any other qualifiers? after all the women in the movie more or less do all the work to appease Paimon - wouldn't the greatest reward as a devotee be to act as his host? maybe i'm crazy but it's been interesting to think about.