Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power

Why did we not see Mr Craig as Bond coming out the water in slow-mo in Casino Royale, but we saw Halle Berry from Die Another Day. I wonder why?

Cinema is meant to mirror real life, that's be honest here us men as stupid, from the early teens women control us. I wonder if these women interviewed have ever used there bodies to attract men? To get things from men? Women go for looks the same as blokes all this BS about "we are deeper then that" BS try a dating site, try meeting in a room of singles, they see the cover and decide the same as men.

Look at Playboy and the other mags, did people force the women to go into the magazines? NO they done it for money and fame.

A woman who is a close "friend" said to me once, we sit on a pot of Gold you men are so weak, I could not argue with her Monroe who begged to be a straight actor, and was refused got to the heights she did by being pure SEX, Some like it hot for one film.

Women can't get the hump when they use their sexuality to control us like a dog on a lead, then cry when they are portrayed as that in some films.

That Doc is BS some of the old films they showed in black and white these actors could ACT yes they looked sexy, but did you see any skin? And some of these films won awards they were great films, so we hate them now cause of the way the camera shot them.

It would be interesting to know how many blokes in that audience had to adjust their trousers as some of these clips were hot stuff it's like Helen Mirren now one of the Greatest Women actors EVER how did she start off her career, was she forced to do that film?

Warning: this film may take you on a rollercoaster of anger-grief-hope.

BRAINWASHED: SEX-CAMERA-POWER is striking in its simple, straightforward demonstration of power dynamics at play in the visual language of cinema, the impact of those dynamics on culture, and solutions for moving forward in a new way.

Filmmaker nina menkes treats the subject in a calm and measured manner, walking the audience through the topic like they're attending a graduate film studies class.

The audience is given a multitude of examples which demonstrate a visual pattern that is - whether intentionally or unintentionally - reinforced throughout a century of filmmaking, a pattern that most often objectifies women and minorities.

The film links this pattern to the wider, societal implications, its role in contributing to the everyday objectification of women and minorities in workplaces and interpersonal interactions, and the inequitable economics of filmmaking.

Then, rather than condemning the visual pattern, or shaming those who use it, the film plainly asks, "is this style of visual language effectively communicating the narrative?" and/or "is there another way to accomplish the goal that may be even more effective?" here, examples of alternatives are provided.

By bringing the pattern into conscious awareness without any shame or retribution, the film allows the audience an opportunity to choose to heal the collective trauma wrought by the normalization of on-screen dehumanization, and to be free of the unconscious visual language so that it can be transformed into an entirely new system.

Film maker Nina Menkes delivers a lecture to film students etc advocating that the way films are made and specifically how camera shots of women are composed are still inherently objectifying women such that it is illegal / discriminatory. This is backed up by the analysis of many clips by many different women.

It has been said that you are not going to look at films the same way after this and that's probably true. Mendes puts forward strong, pretty much undeniable arguments to support her point and it is astounding to appreciate that this goes on - although I'm not sure the points she's making works convincingly with every clip. What's more worrying is that Hollywood is still a bastion of male film making with very few women film makers out there and with most men portraying women in a very specific objective and rather offensive way. Not a riveting documentary, but a good argument which like all such cases won't convince everyone - although I'm not sure why. My one complaint is that no one from the 'industry' is in attendance and not a single male to either argue or concede the point.

It's interesting to see the different opinions from the comment sections. I saw someone made a comment and it goes something like "yes women are being objectified but they are also doing so on their own accord..."and they (sorry to assume but i guess there is 89% chances that they are a cis-gender heterosexual man) used examples if instagram influencer and models...

Utterly speechless, why so defensive? This is a desperate try to distract people and themselves from the actual issues at the core of this film which is extremely poignant. If we are talking about male gaze, and the objectification of men toward women, we are talking about an oppressive troupe which put women in a passive position, dehumanizing women, ignoring their subjectivity and voices while fragmenting their bodies, privileging the male gaze. Influencers and models are a different issue here, what they suggest that is women dont have autonomy and sense to empower themselves by displaying and posing their bodies on sns in their own way. Cuz whatever we do is to cater your gaze and perpetuate male oppression right?

Women have the freedom to choose whatever the way the want to celebrate and display their bodies, its about being comfortable in one's own skin.

And also why not think of why women feel the need sometimes to cater or as they suggest perpetuate the objectification? Its patriarchal pedagogy and propaganda which a lot of us have to unlearn. Its structural, still pinpointing to the cultural of female objectification. Stop being defensive, look inward. Or else you are not getting any point of this documentary.

In her documentary, Nina Menkes explores how the movie industry, through filmmaking techniques and male-centric visions and decisions, has been encouraging and approving the very toxic behaviors that same industry is shyly starting to condemn today.

Not only does Menkes describes how systematically the "male gaze" treatment is applied to female protagonists even and especially in award-winning movie, but also allows her audience to identify the tropes that are being used by filmmakers to construct this sexualised and objectified imagery of women.

Hopefully her matter-of-factly approach will help give her work credibility, given how tricky it is for women to be taken seriously on such controversial subjects.