Continuation of a debate on paft's blog, as I exceeded her comment-size limit.
(BTW: if anyone else in the universe is reading this besides paft, and would like to know the full context of this article, you may go ahead and see for yourself at http://paft.livejournal.com/22037.html)
And you know of such a study?
Beats the heck outta me.
Just to be really clear about what I was saying: if Ms. Kesler has any compelling evidence of her thesis that's not necessarily statistics or a study, I'd be keenly interested to see it. (If it needs saying, I don't consider anecdotal evidence "compelling".) However... partly because I was busy with other matters, and partly because I wanted to give her a reasonably fair length of time to respond before drawing any conclusions, I don't think we're going to see much of any sort of support from Ms. Kesler for her ideas...
First of all it implies a falsely limited choice, i.e., that something is either "science" or it is "opinion." It also presumes that the only way to determine the facts is by quantification. This Lazarus Long saying implies that something only becomes "true" if a study has been done, numbers are piled up, and equations calculated. Sorry, but reality just doesn't work that away.
OK, I'll buy this. If I am holding a shovel, and I say, "I am holding a shovel," that doesn't really qualify as science or opinion but is fairly unquestionably fact. Point taken.
I still like the aphorism, though. :-)
See, your above statement illustrates the problem with this Lazarus Long saying, which implies anything outside of statistics falls in the realm of crackpottery. The marginalization of women in American cinema is quite credible to anyone who has either worked in the business, written about film, studied film, or just seen a lot of movies. Heavily cited books have been written and well researched documentaries filmed about not only the marginalization of women in Hollywood films, but the marginalization of gays, of African Americans, of Asians and other groups.
We don't seem to be talking about the same thing. I'm not suggesting that women are not being marginalized in American cinema. In fact, I believe that quite readily. As you probably know, ever since TV stole a great deal of the audience for movies in the 50s, about half the ticket-buying audience has been under-25 males. I'm totally not surprised if the average member of that demographic starts having his eyes glaze over when two ladies in a movie are talking about having their colors done.
My question is this: is that being done out of prejudice, or is it being done out of good business sense? You do know that the costs/profits return on movies is rather sucky overall, do you not?
Even if you disagree with it, reacting to the statement as if it were some "bizarre" "uncredible" "extraordinary" claim out of left field akin to little green men doing anal probes does very little for your credibility.
Ma'am, Ms. Kesler claims that she's a "damn good writer" and that her talent is "pure gold", and that she was so infuriated with what she saw as rampant sexism in film school that she "left film for good, opting to fight the system from without". In fact, she's doing such a fine job of Fighting The Power that, to this day, she has precisely no credits at all in the IMDb. (Hell, even I have one, albeit as just a production assistant.) If that didn't set off your baloney alarm, her behavior when I dared to question her thesis sure should have.
Since she's not exactly eager to support her notion, and is in fact quick to crush any questioning of her ideas, to say nothing of -- gasp! -- dissent -- it's time to start asking less polite questions, e.g., "What is the real reason Jennifer Kesler left UCLA film school? Was her departure even remotely voluntary?"
I would suggest that Ms. Kesler is actually completely talentless -- like most Arts and Crafts students -- and that she treated her classmates and professors to her large mouth and large ego (funny how those so frequently come in a matched set) once too often.
I would further like to say that, even though I've not spent a day in film school, I will put my spec scripts up against hers anytime -- assuming, of course, that Ms. Kesler has ever finished a single feature-length screenplay in her life.
(Did I mention that at least two of mine pass the Bechdel Test? :-) )
This is further evidence, not that any more was needed, that Usenet really is vastly superior to the blogosphere... even with all the trolls, spamming, and personal attacks. Instead of becoming some sort of Internet meme, Ms. Kesler's article would have been exposed in about three days as the unsupported silliness that it is.
A friend tells me that he never posts to opposing political blogs. Now I know why. I wasn't expecting the Thought Police to be so prompt, and so thorough.
This elaborately mimed disbelief of yours across less as a rational argument than posturing in lieu of argument.
I actually wasn't arguing with the idea at all. I was merely requesting supporting evidence.
But that's exactly what you've said. I asked what you would accept as proof. You've said "I would accept some sort of statistics or study that demonstrates that a given movie passing the Bechdel test does not necessarily lower its chances for box-office success." When I asked you if such a study existed, you said, "beats the hell out of me."
So how is my above statement a "strawman?"
You're saying that I would only accept some sort of study as evidentiary backing. That may be what you concluded, but that isn't what I meant. Sorry if I was less than perfectly clear.
TSR: Firstly, I'm comfortably certain that I'm right in every case on that list...
You aren't.
Well, shucks, I already stated why I believe all those films pass that test, mostly with individual scenes in the films identified. I want to hear your argument as to why this isn't so.
TSR: Secondly... convince you of what?
That there's anything "bizarre", "uncredible," or "extraordinary" about what Kesler has described.
I wasn't actually trying to convince you of anything at that point. You asked me a fair question, so I answered you.
And you know of such a study?
Beats the heck outta me.
Just to be really clear about what I was saying: if Ms. Kesler has any compelling evidence of her thesis that's not necessarily statistics or a study, I'd be keenly interested to see it. (If it needs saying, I don't consider anecdotal evidence "compelling".) However... partly because I was busy with other matters, and partly because I wanted to give her a reasonably fair length of time to respond before drawing any conclusions, I don't think we're going to see much of any sort of support from Ms. Kesler for her ideas...
First of all it implies a falsely limited choice, i.e., that something is either "science" or it is "opinion." It also presumes that the only way to determine the facts is by quantification. This Lazarus Long saying implies that something only becomes "true" if a study has been done, numbers are piled up, and equations calculated. Sorry, but reality just doesn't work that away.
OK, I'll buy this. If I am holding a shovel, and I say, "I am holding a shovel," that doesn't really qualify as science or opinion but is fairly unquestionably fact. Point taken.
I still like the aphorism, though. :-)
See, your above statement illustrates the problem with this Lazarus Long saying, which implies anything outside of statistics falls in the realm of crackpottery. The marginalization of women in American cinema is quite credible to anyone who has either worked in the business, written about film, studied film, or just seen a lot of movies. Heavily cited books have been written and well researched documentaries filmed about not only the marginalization of women in Hollywood films, but the marginalization of gays, of African Americans, of Asians and other groups.
We don't seem to be talking about the same thing. I'm not suggesting that women are not being marginalized in American cinema. In fact, I believe that quite readily. As you probably know, ever since TV stole a great deal of the audience for movies in the 50s, about half the ticket-buying audience has been under-25 males. I'm totally not surprised if the average member of that demographic starts having his eyes glaze over when two ladies in a movie are talking about having their colors done.
My question is this: is that being done out of prejudice, or is it being done out of good business sense? You do know that the costs/profits return on movies is rather sucky overall, do you not?
Even if you disagree with it, reacting to the statement as if it were some "bizarre" "uncredible" "extraordinary" claim out of left field akin to little green men doing anal probes does very little for your credibility.
Ma'am, Ms. Kesler claims that she's a "damn good writer" and that her talent is "pure gold", and that she was so infuriated with what she saw as rampant sexism in film school that she "left film for good, opting to fight the system from without". In fact, she's doing such a fine job of Fighting The Power that, to this day, she has precisely no credits at all in the IMDb. (Hell, even I have one, albeit as just a production assistant.) If that didn't set off your baloney alarm, her behavior when I dared to question her thesis sure should have.
Since she's not exactly eager to support her notion, and is in fact quick to crush any questioning of her ideas, to say nothing of -- gasp! -- dissent -- it's time to start asking less polite questions, e.g., "What is the real reason Jennifer Kesler left UCLA film school? Was her departure even remotely voluntary?"
I would suggest that Ms. Kesler is actually completely talentless -- like most Arts and Crafts students -- and that she treated her classmates and professors to her large mouth and large ego (funny how those so frequently come in a matched set) once too often.
I would further like to say that, even though I've not spent a day in film school, I will put my spec scripts up against hers anytime -- assuming, of course, that Ms. Kesler has ever finished a single feature-length screenplay in her life.
(Did I mention that at least two of mine pass the Bechdel Test? :-) )
This is further evidence, not that any more was needed, that Usenet really is vastly superior to the blogosphere... even with all the trolls, spamming, and personal attacks. Instead of becoming some sort of Internet meme, Ms. Kesler's article would have been exposed in about three days as the unsupported silliness that it is.
A friend tells me that he never posts to opposing political blogs. Now I know why. I wasn't expecting the Thought Police to be so prompt, and so thorough.
This elaborately mimed disbelief of yours across less as a rational argument than posturing in lieu of argument.
I actually wasn't arguing with the idea at all. I was merely requesting supporting evidence.
But that's exactly what you've said. I asked what you would accept as proof. You've said "I would accept some sort of statistics or study that demonstrates that a given movie passing the Bechdel test does not necessarily lower its chances for box-office success." When I asked you if such a study existed, you said, "beats the hell out of me."
So how is my above statement a "strawman?"
You're saying that I would only accept some sort of study as evidentiary backing. That may be what you concluded, but that isn't what I meant. Sorry if I was less than perfectly clear.
TSR: Firstly, I'm comfortably certain that I'm right in every case on that list...
You aren't.
Well, shucks, I already stated why I believe all those films pass that test, mostly with individual scenes in the films identified. I want to hear your argument as to why this isn't so.
TSR: Secondly... convince you of what?
That there's anything "bizarre", "uncredible," or "extraordinary" about what Kesler has described.
I wasn't actually trying to convince you of anything at that point. You asked me a fair question, so I answered you.