User Reviews

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?

Coming here to read the reviews after finishing the documentary and seeing so many angry men labelling the director obnoxious, "bpd feminist", etc etc, just proves the point that this documentary was NEEDED in the field of filmmaking.

The documentary is a window towards a new perspective in filmmaking, where women directors (and anywhere in the movie industry) are empowered by having equal opportunities to express their creativity while having it valued justly by the industry.

The director Nina Menkes raises some essential questions which are upon the future generations of creatives to answer. She has a way of engrossing the viewer to what is being presented, while also making them an active part of it.

I hope this documentary sparks a new era in the filmmaking industry and beyond.

"The first feminist act is looking. To say, "Ok, you're looking at me, but I am looking right back." Agnes Varda.

The whole thing drags on with constant contradictions. "See how they aren't wearing enough clothes, that's sexist" "See how they're wearing too many clothes, that's sexist" That's the whole script(obviously, I'm exaggerating, but not by much) It's a collection of the most unattractive man haters they could find, who are angry that men don't want them, talking about how terrible men are.

The whole thing makes about 2 half decent points and just rattles on about nonsense after that.

I'm going to insult my self and point out the obvious: if you don't like it, don't watch it... Sadly, it's too late for me and this 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.

Authors and guests dive deep into every aspect of film making and history, to find "patriarchal" elements. There are a lot of axioms, which are not defined, but can be perceived through their comments. For example, predatory behaviour comes from men and patriarchy. They set very clear divide between two sexes with many generalisations, which might be true(statistically speaking), but same people would never accept the same treatment if real statistics were used as counter arguments. It's the cat and mouse game between generalisation and specialisation. They usually take whatever suits them best, for a particular situation. Authors don't want to discover, research, learn. They want to impose, in a very "patriarchal" way. Here lies the ultimate truth. Within is the answer they refuse to accept. Every person is a microcosmos. A combination of the worst and the best humanity offers and everything in between. We are biologically separated by combination of X and Y chromosomes, that govern our physical traits but all other characteristics fall into a spectrum. Some are very common and some fall generally more on one side. None of them is inherently good or bad. It's all about the context. Even when we use archetypes from psychology, like "tyrannical father" and "devouring mother", gender is used just as a description, not a permanent label. A man can behave as a "devouring mother". It's sad to see all these accomplished and grown people not being able to behave as adults.

Not to say that women aren't overly sexualized, they are, but people aren't taking into account that women themselves are responsible for this perception as well. Even if women didn't create the objectification they are guilty of perpetuating it a well as embracing it. Men don't see women as objects to punch down on, we see them as ones to worship. Women are sought after by men and even by other women. Women know this which is why there is an abundance of instagram /onlyfans models in society. Some of these women are type cast and they know it but instead of walking away or changing things up they just give in and do it for the money. There needs to be accountibilty on both sides, however, if there is an agreement reached then it's consentual and there should never be complaints afterwards. People need to realize that it's not about gender disparity, it's about telling a story and the roles that each person has to play. And as far as unequal pay goes it's not about what you are but where you sit on the totem pole of celebrity. Charlyne Yi is not getting paid as much as Julia Roberts or Leonardo DiCaprio because she can't act on that level or it's because she's not the star of the show. Pay is based on talent, status, experience and how much exposure you have on camera. Some people just look at a handful of incidents and use those to 'Brainwash' everyone into thinking that's how it always is. People mostly forget that the Hollywood industry is based on negotiable contracts not set wages. If you can't negotiate you will get low-balled, that's how it works. If a company can pay you less than they will to save profits. And when it comes to objectification I remember Sharon Stone protesting about all the nudity in Basic Instinct after 30 years saying that she didn't realize it even though she was naked, with a camera in her face while the director was also naked on set to make her feel more at ease. Lets also be honest that most folks, even women, do not want to see men naked in movies. We are nowhere near as attractive as women and that's a fact. Women can play certain roles while men play others, these are the facts of life it is not meant to objectify but to make things realistic. No one is holding anyone back.

This is a must watch film. It is raw, honest and critically important. BRAINwASHED creates a much needed awareness in the film industry and describes how camera angle and other filmmaking elements contributes to issues that effect women: sexualization, employment discrimination and even the rape culture that sadly exists in our society. A must watch!

This is especially important for the younger generation of film makers, as they are the ones who can truly make a difference and show that it is possible to choose differently when filming the female body in a way that is engaging but not sexualizing.

This film is the epitome of a borderline personality disorder and our grievance based value system currently popularized in western society.

Gather 'round children.

The number one indicator of BPD is a chaotic personal life. Having a problem with everything, aka finding a problem with everything. Destroying and complaining. This documentary is a delusional one dimensional perspective based in grievance and trying to make everything a problem. In other words it is a gender/women's study class in college. Complain, complain, complain. Never see another perspective. Then find ways to make those complaints significantly worse or more impactful than they really are. Then come the useful idiots or flying monkeys to agree with you and do your bidding. And if you can do a cheesy TedX talk or something similar, you are validated!

Remember, women had girls scouts and brownies troops, but they still sued the boy scouts for discrimination!

Once you see this movie, you can't unsee what it clearly demonstrates.

Brainwashed is a giant step in bringing awareness to the subtle and not-so-subtle ways women are treated as second class citizens through cinematic process and technique. Brainwashed shows how consistent camera angles, lighting, and other shot design elements are applied exclusively to women, such that women are almost exclusively presented as objects of other's (men's mostly) desires rather than as their own subjects in the characters they portray.

This below awareness process inculcates patriarchal codes! "If the camera is predatory, then the culture is predatory."

This is a meta-level awareness game changer of a film! Must see!

Menkes lays out her premise early on: the portrayal of women in film leads to discrimination in the workplace and to rape. My question then is did discrimination and rape begin in the silent era--or did men wait to begin committing atrocities against women until "The Jazz Singer" and talking pictures?

The concept of the "male gaze" began with one reference in one academic paper by a feminist film theorist/critic, and it's been distorted ever since, especially in pieces like this film. Yes, the male point of view is predominant throughout much of film history, though that's changing. But no, seeing women as male characters and/or male filmmakers see them isn't some inherently malign attempt at subjugation--a naive interpretation of authorial voice--but rather an expression of biological and psychological reality. Heterosexual men like looking at attractive women, be those women showgirls or CEOs.

Polemicists like Menkes often use inexactitudes in our language to exploit words like "objectification." An honest description of male desire and arousal by the sight of a woman wouldn't equate sexual desire with interest in objects (though there's room in this world for people of whatever gender to be turned on by any manner of actual objects), but rather with evolution-driven and healthy biology. Men see women's bodies and faces as--wait for it--desirable human anatomy. I may see an ice sculpture of a woman and find its shape appealing as art, but I don't want to have sex with it. It's an object, not a woman. Not by any stretch of my imagination do I think of objects as responsive human beings whose bodies arouse me. (I suppose Menkes could argue that men who find sex dolls erotic are guilty of objectification, but that seems more relevant to an analysis of fetishism than the real problems of workplace discrimination and sexual assault.)

Halfway through the film Menkes reveals that she had the privilege of going to UCLA for her graduate degree in film and could throw around money so she could get exclusive use of facilities. Okay, fine. There are plenty of spoiled people around. But then she complains that she didn't know how to dress on dates and that was because of the movies. She proceeds to show us some photos of herself wearing ill-fitting and unflattering outfits. I'd say, Menkes, if you felt you wanted to look good on dates and didn't know how, then you should've asked someone for help; perhaps you could've slipped someone with fashion sense a twenty. You looked attractive and fine and I'm sure there were men who would have, and did, find you to be an "object" of desire, i.e, appreciated you as a sexually arousing female human being. I hope that brought you joy. But the oppression you say you experienced then wasn't because there were attractive actresses showing their bodies in movies, but rather because of systemic inequality. Younger women are getting chances in the film industry that you never had. Don't begrudge them the freedom to embrace or satirize or criticize heteronormative behavior on their own terms. Don't try to be the sex police (a criticism you try to head off, a bit of defensiveness which in itself is telling).

I understand that Menkes is rightfully, frustrated and angry over discrimination from male studio executives. But that has more to do with the content of male studio executives' character than the content of the films she's carefully chosen--cherry-picked. Her revenge seems to be an attempt at some kind of thought-police. In fact, one of her interviewees goes so far as to instruct filmmakers on what they "should" do. Beware those who would impose their whims on others. The "should" authoritarians gave us Stalin and Mao. The results were deadly.

Menkes ignores so many counter examples I don't know where to begin, but... Brad Pitt showing off his body for the benefit of the female gaze in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood," likewise "Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale," and John Cena in "Trainwreck." Men's great-looking bodies are increasingly "objectified" in the movies. I say that's terrific. Maybe I don't have Daniel Craig's physique, but I don't have to wallow in self-pity because of it.

I watched the film with a woman who has her own graduate degree in communications. She said that had she presented this film's thesis to her professors it would've been torn apart, perhaps laughed out of the room. The film was an insult to her as a woman who has fought for equality and endured terrible acts of misogyny. She left the room about halfway through. That indictment was far stronger than anything I might add.

Brainwashed: Sex-Camera-Power i s documentary that focuses on the male perspective to which becomes the narrative on 95-98 % of all films made. By men, seen by men and women seen as a object.

As a male I must say I am kinda baffled that I haven't seen that in all these movies. I have of course seen the obvious, but there's so many that I didn't see go into that narrative.

The fact that the male body is taboo in most movies, that you never see close up s of it i quite baffling.

A film to learn from, and be ashamed of, as a male? Yes, I'm sorry to say.

That is in fact the case. And it's really too much to handle.

We are almost always asked to see the male perspective, even in films made by women, because we are learned that's the way to do it.

Important stuff for any film school, and for any film buff.

The objectification of women is certainly a crucial issue that needs to be dealt with. However, if awareness of the problem is to be raised, it definitely requires a better film than this specious, sloppy, cherry-picked offering. Based on a TED Talk-style presentation titled "Sex and Power: The Visual Language of Film" by director Nina Menkes, the filmmaker makes the argument that objectification is a result of the way male-female interactions are typically staged in movies, a practice that reflects a phenomenon referred to as "the male gaze," a leering stare that, in turn, is responsible for things like employment discrimination in the entertainment industry and increased incidents of sexual harassment and assault. And, because films "reinforce" this, as Menkes insists, they're at fault for these troubling problems, a product that's a direct result of the decision-makers in the male-dominated movie industry. One might say this is indeed a plausible hypothesis given the proliferation of these filming techniques in motion pictures. There's just one problem with this theory - it's largely nonsense. To begin with, "the male gaze" has been around a lot longer than the movie business (like, say, all the way back to prehistoric times), a notion implied just by the very idea that movies are said to "reinforce" this practice, suggesting its earlier appearance in the history of the species. Second, males invoke the gaze with more than just women (just ask almost any gay man who's checking out another male at a bar or community event). And, third, this practice is engaged in by men who never go to the cinema (especially many of the somewhat obscure titles the director cites as examples to allegedly prove her point). The argument is further undermined by some of the film clips she uses in a failed attempt to add credence to her contention - pictures that were directed by women that incorporate some of the same filming techniques she criticizes. She even takes issue with the staging of a scene in the film "Bombshell" (2019), a picture whose very intent is chronicling the sexual harassment scandal at FOX News involving power broker Roger Ailes, lambasting it for employing some of the same filming practices that this production was seeking to expose. Of course, to demonstrate how things should be done, Menkes taps a number of clips from her own films (titles that I, as an avid cinephile, have never heard of and that include content similar to what she's criticizing, even if filmed somewhat differently). (Ah, yes, nothing like a little blatantly shameless self-promotion to help prove your point.) To its credit, this documentary draws worthy attention to the issues of objectification, employment discrimination in Hollywood and sexual abuse, but this film is a sorry representative of those issues, all of which are addressed much more effectively by releases like "This Changes Everything" (2018) and "She Said" (2022). Those other films are much more interesting than this snooze, too, a clunky offering that plays more like a seminar than a movie. It's truly ironic that Menkes asserts men have become brainwashed into this way of thinking by what they see in the movies, especially given that the only one who seems to have been brainwashed here is the director herself by her own material.

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.

This so called documentary wants to deconstruct the human psychology and even genetics. All men are made in such a way that are attracted by women, by their look and their sexuality. Now the new feminism wants to deconstruct this and see it as a sin. When you as a male have something imbedded in you that makes you look after a beautiful woman this is as per the producers of this documentary wrong.

The way they go with this feminism and some other ideas will turn against capitalist/progressist society they want to change it now. It all started with BLM and now goes to this thing that is against human nature.

These days, everyone is a content creator and receiver.

BRAINWASHED is a MUST-SEE film as we strive for equity and inclusion in today's world. You will never look at media in the same way again. In other words it will change the way you look at EVERYTHING!

The film pulls back the curtain on cinematic history to reveal how our perceptions of women and men have been shaped over decades.

An engrossing experience for anyone in content creation and for all of us as consumers of content.

SEE it once... See it twice... Share it... Talk about it... and dare to bring your newfound awareness into you own life.

This pseudo intellectual piece of garbage has to be the laziest piece of documentary film making I've seen in a long time, possibly ever. It has one point to make that we all know anyway (that Hollywood is misogynistic in the extreme and produces films that aren't exactly taxing) and God doesn't it tell you it, over and over again. The talking head interviews are banal and spewed forth from a variety of the usual 'minorities' (interestingly the views of disabled women aren't present, but us folk with disabilities are asexual anyway, aren't we? ) and points are reiterated ad infinitum. Also, there are no men at all in the interview sections to at least give the illusion of a balanced piece of filmmaking.

The whole thing feels like a po faced gcse film project made by people who just don't like men and are in full on attack mode. Rather upsetting for us blokes who aren't bigoted, mysogynistic pigs and attempt to treat women with respect.

For most of my life.. what was allowed to be told, portrayed and dramatized was waaaaaaaay different from what Hollywood did. And I always said: it's how these western folks operate, just watch a different kind of art.

This is an eye opening examination cinema, from the perspective of half the world. How cinema is visually made and consumed by all of us.

The film needed to make references to other films which contained nudity, but whenever that was shown, it didn't feel forced. In fact, it felt like evidence.

I will show this movie to my son at some point. So that he too one day may watch movies with a knowinng eye.

Wow this is one unnecessary movie. Who financed it?

A very homely, unattractive, older woman drones on about sex in the cinema and how it is stacked to abuse women.

It's done in the form of a class presentation as if the audience are babies who need to be lectured to. Sort of insulting.

And who is this this woman? Never heard of her and what makes her an expert? Apparently it's the ability to cherry pick scenes that fit a pre-determined outcome.

So silly. And what's worse is that this unattractive older woman includes the scenes in the movie, which obviously is done, not as proof, but as fodder for prurient interest.

It's a thoroughly insulting piece of garbage.

This film demonstrates how, for decades, a very small group of people have shown us who a woman is and how she's valued. This idea isn't new, but the visual representation is radical and as tears filled my eyes in the theatre I could literally see the way I've shaped myself and my characters around someone else's vision - without ever even meaning to. It's a visceral experience, it's a fair examination, and I'm convinced there's no other way to teach this. To anybody in film, this movie is anything but a call to war against the classics; it is an exciting invitation for innovation in a gripping and meaningfully uncomfortable way. This film says, "it's time for change" and even does the favor of showing us how. The power is in our hands.

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.

This insightful, challenging feature-length documentary by veteran independent filmmaker and film school instructor Nina Menkes takes a hard look at the types of camera shots long used by directors and cinematographers to capture women on film. A must-see for anyone interested in gaining a better understanding of the differences in the way women are visually portrayed on screen verses the way men are portrayed and what impact those differences mean to society. The documentary includes many clips from classic and contemporary films as well as interviews with fellow filmmakers, industry professionals, and advocates.

An essential film. A necessary film for every filmmaker. An essential document for future filmmakers but also for experienced filmmakers who want to apply the gender perspective to walk towards a better and more just world. A basic guide that should be disseminated in all film schools around the world. A meticulous and very careful job. Contains examples of films with a gender perspective film analysis. Very interesting interviews that open a new horizon to society. It is a courageous work very well founded and perfectly explained. That is why it can be very uncomfortable for the industry. Congratulations.

This film powerfully sheds light on how both past and present Hollywood cinema perpetuates the normalisation of sexual violence. Through compelling case studies, academic discussions, and Menkes' theoretical insights, it exposes recurring patterns of the objectification of women through the male gaze.

A particularly impactful quote resonates: "If the camera is predatory, then culture is predatory". The film illustrates instances where women are consistently silenced on screen, becoming objects for male fantasy, and underscores how this exploitation extends to marginalised groups. It's a poignant and uncomfortable viewing experience, delving into the intricate connection between the visual language of cinema and the environment of sexual assault and abuse.

Watch it now; it will undoubtedly alter your perspective on films. A powerful, thought-provoking, and must-see piece of cinema.