To abuse an uncle, he must be a pedophile, as if saying that if an uncle is not, he is a normal person and should not be abused. Isn't this in the hands of patriarchy? Patriarchy is the rationality of the masculine norms in this society. If instead of attacking this seemingly reasonable standard, but instead complicit in it and "justly" judge a "infidel", what does feminism mean? In fact, the arbitrary moral judgment of pedophiles is not the most disgusting part of the film, but the director needs a necessary "crime" to make Loli's abuse of the uncle legal. This undoubtedly represses violence against men behind a pedophile fig leaf. From this, we can see that in the cultural atmosphere of patriarchy, a woman's violence must be controlled by morality, and it is firmly established on the ethical basis of the violence itself.
We can see male killers and sadists in other films killing and abusing recklessly, just for the sake of killing and abusing. That said, their violence doesn't need to be justified using any degree of moral grounding, or the sense of justice found in heroic movies. And we rarely see female killers who kill inexplicably in movies. In this film, the director seems to have created an unconventional "Lori Killer" image (different from Matilda, who caters to male aesthetics in "This Killer is Not Too Cold", Hailey can really give straight men the meaning Sensuality, her long-winded, shrewd and cunning can make them feel the slightest chill), and aims to pass the torture and abuse of the pedophile uncle in the play (even for Shake M, these sadistic plots can't be in the slightest. Triggered their sexual fantasies, and the director used a tense and serious atmosphere to resolve them, making the abuse no longer a SM game, but playing with you for real), directly destroying the aesthetic expectations of straight male cancer audiences, and Creates an extreme contrast with the standardized image of loli in their minds, causing discomfort to the audience. At this point, the film is necessarily desirable because it is anti-aesthetic. Regrettably, the director had ulterior motives and tried his best to rationalize the abuse of women against men, so he picked pedophiles as targets and stipulated that they were the people to be punished. This is another politically correct role position. The arrangement of the characters in the film is enough to reflect the patriarchal filth deep in the director's ideology.
That is, violence against women is not truly liberated. On the contrary, he ended up with male hobbies and became the person who cleaned up the mess. In this film, women's actions are still the dependent variable that changes with men's behavior, a killer who plays as a loli in order to kill a pedophile, not because he wants to kill. This kind of setting looks like the characters in Marvel, who became heroes in order to punish the bad guys, so they are not really heroes. A hero is not a binary opposition, a hero can also be a bad person, a person who can sacrifice everything for the pilgrimage of individuality. In order to absorb this uncontrollable hero image, popular culture created those "dark heroes" in comics. They seem to be deviant, but in fact they are deeply influenced by the mainstream values of society: as false aliens, they help society eradicate alien. In this film, the crusade against pedophiles by men in the guise of women's rights is an example.
As mentioned above, in a male-dominated society, women's violence needs a legitimate fulcrum before it can pry men up. But what is pedophilia in this film? Does it act as a taboo that men dare not face and accept? Moreover, to what extent does its exposure and criticism play a role in combating patriarchy? In other words, is he fighting against male sexual orientation or male oppression? After reaching such a point, it is especially obvious that the essence of the director's voice is exposed. He does not aim to attack male power itself, but uses a male's sexual fetish as the main target. If the director aims to criticize male fetish for the exploitation and rejection of women's rights, then the male power behind sexual fetish cannot cause any threat. In my opinion, the director's critique of patriarchy is ineffective. He made a mistake and turned the critique into a moral judgment of pedophilia itself (this can be done by discovering the uncle's private child pornography photos) Later, Haley's angry and direct criticism of pedophilia is seen in it. As if the director was afraid that he had not emphasized enough, I suspect that he even specially designed this paragraph to force the lines into the actress's unquestionable "Political Correctness"), rather than a structural critique of patriarchal society and the social effects of pedophilia in it. So it's not surprising that you can't get rid of the cliché of hero movies in the end (this kind of hero movies always establish a dualistic view of good and evil, demonize all individuals that society needs to exclude, and create a just individual representing society to erase It. The emergence of "Dark Heroes" still does not change the whole heroic narrative routine. Ironically, society no longer creates an obvious binary opposition, but adopts a strategy of killing each other between different species. Batman , Ghost Rider, Suicide Squad...).
Feminism must be united with pedophilia (and all marginal groups excluded from patriarchal society), otherwise it can only be backfired, integrated into the ranks of patriarchy, and then, just like in the film, destroyed one by one. Feminism and pedophilia should overturn the code-based regulations on the formation of human nature under the patriarchal system, and should not parasitize in the lair of "political correctness" to criticize men's objectification of women, because that is exactly what patriarchy is about. The snares of design, where feminists are permanently stationed, as if to assume a fixed identity, among the obvious signs of objectification. And society periodically triggers events that stimulate these feminists to elicit a reaction from the former. In this kind of "singing and reconciling", feminists become part of the patriarchal landscape, the "cultural animals" for people to watch behind the glass, and they are precisely those who are kept in captivity by the "politically correct critical structure" in the patriarchal society For people who are politically correct, criticizing male power is the "fodder" for them to live on.
Feminism has to be extreme and extreme. A little politically incorrect, a little more politically incorrect. We need to use Baudrillard's "deadly strategy" to regain the initiative of "temptation" with "self-objectification" and "self-alienation". To confuse male subjectivity. It is only because in the subject, alienation and objectification are possible, and the shackles that men put on women are not alienation and objectification themselves, but the false subjectivity. The war with patriarchy is not about subjectivity, but the right to destroy it, or the definition of "disruption". Because the destruction of male power can only be false destruction, they use the destruction to shape a female "symbolic subject" (so there is no so-called revolution in male power, only the symbolic transformation of women), and in turn The symbolic code of women is manipulated again and again in the destruction (women came out of feudalism and then into the slavery of capitalism. At first distressed by not being able to enjoy equal rights with men, then they are dominated by these rights and distress), the image of women, which is accidentally solidified with the changes of society, is formed in such historicist manipulation. Patriarchy is designed against "pure destruction". In this case, we need to make the storm more violent, not only "destroy" the false destruction itself and then finish, but also need to follow the "destruction" all the way to the end.
The film uses a false criticism and radicality to cover up the crux of its own patriarchy, but this has no effect, it is just another masculinity in front of the mirror of patriarchy, a forced masturbation. Imagine that if the heroine is just a loli killer who suffers from "misogyny", who aims to kill those honest and successful male white-collar workers in the society, they are all normal, going to work every day and playing golf and dating on weekends. One of the men became loli's prey, he didn't marry, he had rich assets, he was looking for fun from time to time, and every woman who was close to him for money wanted to sleep with him for one night, and he was in this atmosphere Like a fish in water. It was this loli killer who seduced this man, and finally kidnapped him and tortured him, just to kill this group of mainstream men. So in this sense, will the whole film gain a little radicality?
View more about Hard Candy reviews
