Split : My girlfriend thinks the movie was trying to "relax" us sexually

---

telling me that she'll dye her hair again if I keep annoying her

---

lol wut? What kind of threat is that?

Lol. that's what I thought. She didn't want to to like it "too" much.

age of consent is 16 where I live, and I treat them as women, adult women. Britney Spears was over 16 I believe, so she should be allowed to show her vagina how she likes.

I don't care what Britney Spears does and she probably was over 16 at the time, just like the actresses in this movie are probably adults. My point was that she was dressed up like a school girl in the video and they made her look extra young with the pigtail braids (which weren't exactly in fashion for high school age girls back then) and some kind of pink poofy things. If the OP's girlfriend is concerned about Hollywood sexualizing the young girl image, it's been done.

Hollywood? How about the entire showbiz industry worldwide?

Honestly, as a straight guy I did get a sense of what your girlfriend is saying. I wasn't mad about it like your girlfriend nor did I arrive at the same conclusion she did, but I did get a feeling that there was something pervy about the movie (never mind the scumbag pedo uncle). The girls kept undressing, rather conveniently, in an almost contrived way, as the film progressed, just enough so it was still acceptable for a PG-13 rating. Personally, I did notice the pattern, and though I didn't feel too strongly about it, it did make me go "wtf?" internally during certain moments. I actually came to the boards to see if anyone felt the same way. To me it doesn't matter if the actresses are actually in their twentiesit's still a bit creepy IMO, and not necessarily in the way it was intended. Looks like I wasn't the only one. My guess is M. Night was just trying to make the audience uncomfortable/unnerved, since the girls kept losing their clothes in the presence of this psycho guy.

I'm female and I didn't really even notice the pattern or feel annoyed by it because I was too focused on James Mcavoy's hotness. Him being in the movie makes up for it for some women I guess lol

Op, don't take your girlfriend to see Brimstone, she'll walk out of that one.

I think it was a play on the trope of the sexually perverted psycho killer and the sexual damsels in distress that's seen in many horror/thrillers but the twist was that he wasn't really sexually motivated and they weren't molested as much as he was saving them for the beast to feed on. It was to turn men and boys on while also mis-directing our assumptions on what was going on.

LOL your gf is weird as fuc* sounds like something my ex would of said and done, she wouldn't allow me to watch movies with sex in them. this movie dealt with a lot, abuse, pedophilia, its not suppose to arouse men. If you getting arouse at young girls then there's something fuc*ked with people. LOL.


and No she has no point shes just odd.

Another day another dream

The joke about Hooters is a good place after the Dr. was uptight about where M. Night (in cameo) got his wings and later the Beast literally eating one of the girls seemed like jokes on sexuality and prudishness IMO.

What do you say, you dumb bitch?

Yea, she rolled her eyes hard at the "Hooters" scene, and shot me a look as well. I just pretended not to notice. The funny thing is that we've watched tons of movies with a girl being sexualized in front of men and she never commented on it, until Split came out she now throws a hissy fit and claims she's tired of so many films doing that to women and yet she would sexualize herself in front of me even when unprovoked. My father always told me since day one to never take a lot of women too seriously.

Can't believe this thread actually blew up (given the flawed premise).

This film in no way sexualizes the girls for gratification. For starters, M Night has never sexualized women in his films. Split tackles some pretty uncomfortable subjects (rape/child moelestation and the sexualization of girls). However, the film doesn't even go that far to physically do this (I mean visually). They are more so implied themes.

The girls are also underage in the plot. I don't know which film your gf was watching, but the camera hardly focused on thier body parts. Go play most video games, and you will see the diffference. The camera will zoom in on the butt as the woman bends over. The camera will move up and down their body parts, almost ogling them. There is nothing even close to that in this movie (go watch a Michael Bay film, and you will this constantly in his work). At best, you have a couple of scenes that show the girls in underwear, and most of those few scenes are zoomed way out, and are wide shots.

What sjws/snowflakes don't understand, is that film can cover subjects like rape and molestation. That does not mean the director supports those ideas. That doesn't mean visually seeing cues to support these themes = exploitation for gratification. Nothing in this film was sexually gratifying in any form (or it certainly wasn't intended to). I know guys can look at any girl in underwear, and find that sexy. That is what it is, a creator can't control what an individual thinks. But in the context of the film, it should not have been arousing. These girls are in a horrific situation, and the context of them being in underwear - should make you feel gross. Because it's a gross situation. So nobody should be getting gratification from that (unless there is something wrong with you). Still, films are not reality, and I could understand a Male watching the film, and thinking the girls were hot. Whatever. But the director certainly didn't make the film to "relax" people into sexually exploiting children. Like wtf.

I can agree that maybe M Night should have went into more depth with the subjects/themes. Some feel he glances over it too quickly, or uses it too much as a crutch to prop up the films main theme (without properly fleshing it out). But given the reactions a lot of people have about what we did get, I'm not even sure any mainstream director can get away with covering these subjects in a wide release film. People are so sensitive, it's insane. I've seen my fellow women (mostly sjw/feminist) that will argue that RAPE should never be in games/film/literature period. Which is total non-sense. Rape is a thing that happens in real life. A bad character in fiction, can rape. That doesn't mean it's exploitation, or gratifying.

I'm honestly baffled that this subject is even being taken seriously. Just because I've seen the film twice, and I never once saw a scene that exploits the sexuality of these girls. LIke I said above, most of the shots are wide-shot, and very pulled back. And when they do show the girls in their underwear, it serves a plot point (makes sense in the context of their situation) and the camera does not zoom in and pan up and down.

People need to understand, there is a big difference between a women being sexy. And the director/camera actually ogling the women. Like let's say in a fictional story, there is a female character that dresses sexy. She's like a femme fatale type. Her being sexy in tight clothes, and sexy body proportions is NOT the same thing, as the creator sexually objectifying the character. If the camera zooms in constantly on body parts (especially when the camera doesn't zoom in that way on others). If the character is constantly making movements that are for the sole purpose of showing off body parts etc. THAT is objectifation. That is an example of a creator exploiting a women for sex in fiction. There is a major difference. And that certainly does not happen in this film.

Women in underwear by itself is not even sexual objectifation. It's not even sexy by itself. Context absolutely matters. The context in this film, is that these girls have been kidnapped, they are scared, and they are being held by a psychopath (that we later learn, Dennis has a sexual thing for underage girls). Most of the shots are static (usually pulled out, where the camera sits still at flat angles). There isn't any cases of the camera zooming in on body parts, or moving up and down (or angeled) at a way that sexualizes the girls. Nothing about these scenes actaully even sexualizes these girls. If there is any sexualization, it may be coming from the implication of Dennis (the monster that is holding them hostage). But the movie doesn't go out of its way to show that to the audience.

In this movie, there isn't even a case of characters being sexy. They are just characters that are being violated, and are in an uncomfortable situation. The reality is, this film covers a really uncomfortable subject, about how society sexually objectifies women (especially at a young age). It was also about how deep trauma can impact a person (in this case, Anya's character arc is supposed to run parallel to McAvoy's character and ends up tying into it, given that one of Kevin's personality, is exploiting these girls). The film doesn't actually have a physical plot, where Dennis sexually abuses them (minus Hedwig kissing Anya's character). I guess making them get undressed is a form of sexual assault (as is kidnapping). But what I mean is, there is no rape or molestation of these women physically in the plot. But the movie also wants to tell a story that alludes to those things (so it's almost an allegory for it). Which is what makes the whole film disturbing, and makes Dennis/The Beast actions all that more horrific.

I think in that sense, M Night did a great job. Because as a woman, it certainly shook me in ways others films do not. He didn't need to physically show rape or molestation. Yet, the situation (and how he uses visual language) essentially told us a story about it. I'm honestly really confused that people are suggesting M Night is a perv, and would randomly (out of all his films in his long history) would just choose sexually exploit women for gratification, especially in a film where the plot has the girls being underage. Like WTF. I'm also baffled, because I've seen the movie multiple times now, and do not see any scenes that exploit for gratification. Certainly nothing that "relaxes people" into it. Like Christ.

I feel like your GF wasn't really able to handle this sensitive subject, and has really projected her own uncomfortable feelings onto the film. I think it's really messed up, that she would accuse M Night of exploiting underage girls for exploitation. Granted, she's a nobody. But still messed up.

I read that ridiculously long post and while you've made some points and I was going to go along with much of what you said, you concluded on a sour note, claiming my girlfriend to be a nobody wasn't really necessary. It's like a cheap shot. In her defense, I'll ignore it. She's still someone I care about as a person, even if I don't care for her opinions at times.

I'm sorry if you feel offended by what I said about your GF. But as a woman, I just really struggle to see where she's coming from. I don't think that last part was meant to be an insult (at least that wasn't my gut intention). I actually feel empathy for other women that had an intense emotional reaction to this movie. Sometimes it's hard for men to understand, what it's like to be a woman, and how we fear for things like rape and sexual assault all the time. Or the fact that, we have to deal with being objectified, and have people treat us sexually, when we might not want to be. This isn't to say men can't also experience that. I've actually seen a rise, in women objectifying Men more and more in recent years. But overall, it's something women have to experience, even from an early age. Also just the fact that, most men can overpower us physically. It's a real fear.

So I do empathize with other women, who see films/art like this, and have a very intense reaction. Especially to the women who have been sexually abused, or who have experienced horrible moments with being objectified.

My issue with your GF premise, was that M Night was somehow a perv, and trying to ease people into essentially, pedophilia. That is quite the claim. It would be one thing, if someone is critical of these elements. But to jump from "I think it was inapropriate" to "he's relaxing people into sexually exploiting young girls" - is pretty crazy. And it really doesn't make sense to me. M Night has never objectified women in any of his films for exploitation. He's always written strong female roles (something I greatly appreciate). He's a father of all daughters. He seems to genuinely care about women. And everything people have said about working with him, jives with that. So it doesn't make sense to me, for him to randomly decide to objectify women for gratification. And to do so, with girls that are underage.

The story is very touchy, and about a very dark and uncomfortable subject. And I just feel that people can mistake that, for the creator supporting the subject, or intentionally being a perv. But I truly don't feel there is any scenes to even support this. At best, we have maybe 4-5 scenes (that make up less then 5% of the total film) - that show the girls in their underwear. But most of these scenes are static wide shot. None of these scenes, have a camera that zooms in or ogles their body parts. I find nothing that supports that he was objectifying these girls. Nothing felt exploitative. Everything felt like it made sense in the plot. And most importantly - context matters. The context being, these girls are supposed to feel uncomfortable. Because it is gross, it is a violation. But having that in a film, is not the same as the director sexually objectifying for gratification. And I said, nothing really supports this.

So I apologize if my last comment was rude. I just think that maybe for some people, it's too uncomfortable of a subject for them, and they are making emotional connections and having intense negative reactions to it. And I certainly have empathy for those people, and don't think they are idiots or bad. But I truly believe they are wrong in this case. I don't think this is an example of subjective interpretation. We can physically look at the film, and analyze scene by scene. And there is nothing to support m night being a perv, and wanting to relax people into sexually objectifying underage girls. I seriously don't see how anyone could see those scenes as gratifying. IMO all the scenes were uncomfortable and gross - as they should be. Because in the context of what is going on, it is.

The girls are being sexualized.Anytime you have attractive, shapley women being forced to disrobe; it's being sexualized; the same wouldn't have happened if they were all boys. But the difference with this movie is we're led to believe that it's sexual, but it turns out that sex isn't the motive of the kidnapper. Whe he dragged the girl away to dance, he just really wanted to dance, but the other girls and the audience automatically thought she was going to be sexually assaulted.

M. Night is using the scenario as kind of a twist. It comes across as a cliched trope, but it turns out that the guy's other personalty needs to clean the close. It's kind of like how in the original Texas chainsaw Massacre, you have the blonde woman in the shorts and tank tops being taken by the crazy family and led to believe that she might be rap;ed, but they're actually going to slaughter her for dinner.

The purpose is to show how really sick these individuals are and how removed they are from the humanity of their victims. The guy only saw the main girl as a human being when he saw her scars.

Interesting that you say Hollywood is trying to get us (or even a society) to think paedophilia is ok. Given what Elijah Wood said about Hollywood and paedophiles, your gf may have a point