can you give me an example of something you consider "deep"?

that's reductive and meaningless. just like the style vs. substance thing, you're trying to establish a dichotomy that doesn't need to exist. there's no reason why one can't enjoy something viscerally and also consider it analytically. besides, the only reason i said that stuff in the first place was to counter the…

season 2 was an allegorical deconstruction of absurdist philosophy and literature, with layered allusions to beckett and kafka. hawley provides plenty of evidence in the text to suggest these connections. if you think there's no substance here, you're really just not bothering to pay attention. i'm sure it's true that…

i'm honestly surprised at how dumb and incurious this writer's take is. "empty"? fargo is one of the most philosophically dense series ever to appear on television. it's fine to enjoy it for its aesthetic pleasures, but the fact that you haven't bothered to analyze it doesn't make it shallow.

i'd like to see you make a better crocodile man

yeah ok, av club, let's take a big shit on those makeup artists and the work they did just because it wasn't a good movie

this is the dumbest shit i've ever seen

shoot me

i don't. i used to enjoy this website years ago, and i occasionally get sucked back in. believe me, i very much regret commenting on here.

i don't know. i haven't seen the movie, and i'm not defending it. i was talking about the article and why i think it's bad.

"In the sentence you cite, the actor's gender is significant in distinguishing which actors Hitchcock was abusing."

you are aggressively missing the point. how is saying "female cast member" different than saying "female actor"? you literally just demonstrated the point i was trying to make. a gender modifier is necessary for clarity in such a context.

okay, you're being obtuse here. tell me how you would reconstruct the following sentence without any reference to gender:

that analogy doesn't really work. what makes it an issue in the case of words like "actress" or "waitress" is the fact that the male term is the same as the neutral/default term. all actors are "actors" whereas only female actors are "actresses." there's an inherent marginalization there. "king" vs. "queen" is a…

i'm not defending the movie. i'm sure it's very bad. i'm only taking issue with the lazy, surface-level analysis that this website dishes out on a regular basis.

i still find the word "actress" useful in a context in which the actor's gender is relevant to the point being made (such as this one), but only because the phrase "female actor" feels awkward.

okay, you got me. i have not seen the movie. i was responding to the weak criticisms presented in this article, but you've painted a much better picture for me than the article itself did.

i feel like you're referring to me here, so i'm going to clarify my position. i agree with the writer's views on the media's treatment of actresses like margot robbie, and i think the inherent sexism in the film industry is self-evident. but i find it questionable to single out this particular movie, and i think that…

why, though? because she's a victim of an abuse? because she's constantly objectified by males? is it sexist to portray unfortunate things that happen to women in real life every day?

not to mention the badass ninja assassin who intimidates the men around her with her fighting abilities. but nah, you're right, must be sexist because the only female character that you care about wears booty shorts or whatever.