Revisionist history and feminist propaganda
So sick of leftist politics in film.
shareStfu.
share
MovieChat Forums > The Queen's Gambit (2020) Discussion > Revisionist history and feminist propaga...
What about it is "revisionist history"?
shareMen and women did not play against each other at the highest levels until the 1980's. Susan Polgar was the first to play in a men's tournament in 1986.
Still a good TV series though.
And where on the show does it say "documentary"???
shareIt doesn't. But it is revisionist just as Inglorious Basterds is.
shareWell, if it doesn't try to be historical but just a fantasy how is it revisionist?
What exactly revisions? Fantasy and imagination that never existed in the first place???
I defined revisionist as; someone who tries to change existing beliefs about how events happened or what their importance or meaning is.
shareAnd my point is that you cannot change believes about events that never happened.
Let’s talk about how Superman revisions the US history then. Or Interview with the Vampire.
I don't think revisionist history is the correct term. It's certainly propaganda, and it's written to push a certain point of view, but not through any attempt to rewrite history.
You can make a case for Inglourious Basterds as revisionist history, but it was done in a comedic, and obvious way, to the point where no one watching it was going to be swayed to believe that the events depicted actually transpired. It was an over-the-top dramatic comedy, openly depicting a sort of "what if" type of story.
If you want to select a Tarantino film that falls more accurately into the category of revisionist history, Django Unchained is a better choice. That presents a history that never was in a manner that can definitely leave an uninformed audience member believing some of the things depicted may actually have happened.
As for The Queen's Gambit, it's a feminist fantasy, and doesn't present its story as a depiction of actual historical events, and I think it's clear to anyone watching that it never happened. Granted, it's seemingly impossible nowadays to underestimate the intelligence of the public, and there may well be people who walked away from the show thinking that there was an American female besting Russian grandmasters in chess in the '60s, but even a cursory Google search can inform those people otherwise.
[deleted]
me too man, but this one wasnt so bad.
shareIs any movie with a female protagonist "feminist propaganda" or "Leftist politics"?
shareNope. Just the ones that are feminist propaganda constructed around Leftist politics.
shareNope. Just the ones that are feminist propaganda constructed around Leftist politics.
Certainly hitting all the buzzwords here
I might start a movieChat women hating far right keyboard warrior bingo buzzword card , see who hits all the right notes the most often. Hopefully the FBI is doing the same ready for when of you extremists bursts into a womens coffee morning meeting with an AR15 to take down some feminsts!
Hopefully the FBI is doing the same ready for when of you extremists bursts into a womens coffee morning meeting with an AR15 to take down some feminsts!
Why are you Leftists always fantasizing about extremists going on some killing spree? You do know that typically happens in Democrat-run states, usually in gun-free zones, and oftentimes perpetrated by minorities... right?
https://www.newser.com/story/249304/10-most-violent-cities-in-us.html
share
the book was written in the 1980s so it reflected a lot of feminist views.
decent story still.
I could never see why people are so opposed to feminism; the idea that women can be the equal of men. Only a caveman would be opposed to that.
Walter Tevis created a book that was quite different than the Hustler or The Color of Money. Imagining a world where a woman can triumph over men, on ocassion, is interesting. It would be a shame for a viewer's sexsm to ruin the story for them.
i think we are just discussing the odds of a chess prodigy reaching such success with almost no effort.
most GMs grind for years before winning a high class tournament.
Beth scoring so many wins is total BS.. man or woman.
Yes but showing Beth grinding away on slowly and incrementally developing her chess skills year after year would make for a pretty boring viewing experience.
That's literally what the Harry Potter movie series is about, and last I checked that made hundreds of millions at the box office.
shareThe Harry Potter movies also have wizards, fantasy creatures, magic and are heavy fantasy. Could that have something to do with why the films made money? Or did people go to it in droves because of the chess? Let me think on that one for a second. You really think this show has the lasting power Harry Potter had to drag it out that long? Come on now.
shareYou really think this show has the lasting power Harry Potter had to drag it out that long? Come on now.
• Naruto
• Dragon Ball Z
• My Hero Academia
Three of the most popular Shonen works use that exact formula (i.e., following characters from a young age into adulthood showing the hard work, dedication, training, wins, and losses that help sculpt their strong character). So yes, it all depends on the writing and how well it's done. share
Animated not live action that is a big difference. Every single show you listed was animated not to mention as I stated earlier those shows lean heavily into fantasy. It is easier to stretch out an animation because no one sees the actor behind the voice when they are voicing the character. Therefore no one can age themselves out of a role. Game of Thrones is a darker and grittier fantasy but the point still stands. Carrying on this show for that long would not carry the interest of something like Dragon Ball Z or the others you listed.
shareAnimated not live action that is a big difference.
Nope. It's all in the writing, just like The West Wing, which lasted for seven seasons and realistically followed the development of a Presidential cabinet.
It is easier to stretch out an animation because no one sees the actor behind the voice when they are voicing the character. Therefore no one can age themselves out of a role.
Doesn't really matter. It all depends on how it's filmed, how it's written and how it's edited.
Carrying on this show for that long would not carry the interest of something like Dragon Ball Z or the others you listed.
Goes back to writing. Breaking Bad and 24 had multiple seasons themed directly around character advancement and plot. 24 in particular canvassed an entire season within the span of 24 real-time hours, which was (and still is) a heck of a lot harder to do than showing the ups and downs of a character becoming a chess champion over the course of a decade.
Flashbacks, flash-forwards, and careful editing can easily make it work, especially since far more difficult shows have been successful capturing similarly told stories of a character's rise and fall over the years.
share
Writing can determine anything but as I originally said what attracted people to Harry Potter was not the chess... The fantasy world, Harry going from a bad situation to a fantasy is something kids can enjoy. The fact that it dressed up school into a hyper fantasy world made school fun when kids generally have a resistance to school. Harry Potter has a wider appeal than something like Queen's Gambit could ever reach. It is literally like arguing what would have a wider appeal Star Wars or Shawshank Redemption. Are both considered classic films? Yep but which one is more marketable and will attract a wider audience? Star Wars easily. So by mentioning Harry Potter it was an ignorant comparison.
Oh it absolutely does matter. If Daniel Craig was 90 years old could he play James Bond? Nope he could not. Could you still have an old person perform the same animated role 40 years later? Yes you could because it is just the voice. Time is not as sensitive when it comes to voice acting as it is to physically acting in a live action feature.
I do not think they had an interest in making this show a long running show that lasted that long to begin with. Just because something is a harder writing challenge does not mean it is better than another project. In any case Queen's Gambit has satisfied the mass majority you are in the minority. It has great scores among critics and users. I know critics are shiills blah blah blah, but the audience is in agreement as well. If you do not like it do not watch the show. It is foolish to assume the show will mold to your wants when you are in the minority.
Just because something is a harder writing challenge does not mean it is better than another project.
LOL, 24 is already historic media and Jack Bauer is a legendary icon right next to Jason Bourne and James Bond.
Based on the popularity, the fact it's had multiple games, spin-offs, and almost had a cross-over film with Die Hard speaks to its popularity.
I would say it's better than Queen's Gambit if we're going simply by public opinion, sales, cross-media pollination and recognition. Same thing could be said of Breaking Bad, too. share
How much time has passed for 24? It aired in 2001, Queens Gambit aired in October of 2020. Not enough time has passed to see where that show will rank among some of the best tv shows ever. I am not denying Jack Bauer is a cultural icon, but he is also an action hero. That tends to help boost you to a wider audience. Who do people like most in Batman's love interest gallery? Catwoman. Is it Vicky Vale? No Catwoman has a much more fun appeal part of which is because she is an action hero. Now you have Walter White while not an action hero he is super relatable to the every man. He falls in line with something like Tony Soprano from the Sopranos, or Tony Montana from Scarface. People like dark relatable characters that have a negative character arc. Queens Gambit by design is not going to have that type of popularity.
Yep I never denied it was popular.
Is something better because it is more popular? You stepped on a land mine. Queens Gambit has a higher rating on imdb among users and has more votes to it as well. This is the largest user based voting website in the world which is public opinion. Breaking Bad beats it no doubt but Breaking Bad absolutely crushes 24. Star Wars is a more popular film than No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood or even Godfather does that mean it is a better film simply because it is more popular? Simply because something is more popular does not by default mean it is better. It can but there are popular things that are not good films.
Is something better because it is more popular? You stepped on a land mine. Queens Gambit has a higher rating on imdb among users and has more votes to it as well.
Yet it only managed a total of 62 million viewers over its entire course of airing. 24, on one night hit close to 20 million viewers:
https://deadline.com/2017/02/24-legacy-ratings-super-bowl-fox-1201903747/
On Average 24 had 9 - 10 million viewers per episode even leading up to its finally over the course of nearly a decade:
https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/24-live-another-day-ratings-32334/
24 also had more award wins over Queen's Gambit, 54 in total, with 208 nominations, compared to just 31 wins by Queen's Gambit.
Queen's Gambit is what you would call a flash in a pan. It will be forgotten in a few year's time.
It can but there are popular things that are not good films.
The point was that both 24 and Breaking Bad are not only popular, critically acclaimed, and well received, but have become cultural phenomenons that have left a global impression based on long-form storytelling. share
Something is not better simply because it is more popular, more things factor in that just popularity. If popularity was the only thing that determined which was better then Transformers would be considered better than No Country For Old Men. Star Wars had a bigger cultural impact on cinema than Lord of the Rings did for cinema. Bottom line Lord of the Rings is still considered a great trilogy of cinema. It is actually considered a better trilogy than Star Wars is. Bourne does not compare to Bond in terms of popularity. Bond is without a doubt more popular. Does that mean Bourne is not one of the best heroes in cinema? Nope not at all. Your argument is shallow.
Queens Gambit also only had one season. Breaking Bad and 24 had multiple seasons to build in an audience. Why does every show need to be as popular as those to be considered great? It is not true. Star Wars is more popular than Shawshank Redemption, but Shawshank Redemption is still considered a classic film. Are you tallying up awards based off it's whole run or just one season? The fair and correct way would be just one season. Also Queens Gambit stands at 8.6 on imdb where as 24 is at 8.3. Remember awards are decided by those critics you constantly throw out as being shills. So now are awards credible or not? You do not get to have them have credibility so long as it suits your narrative. Also Queens Gambit has more votes on imdb than 24 does even though it is only one season to 24's 9 seasons...
Also no Queen's Gambit will be remembered I hate to break it to you. It was a hit with critics and audiences.
Not every thing gets it's acclaim by being long formed storytelling. You stepped on another land mine. Batman The Animated series is considered one of the best television series ever. Guess what there is not an overarching theme to the show. It is not like Dragonball Z where there is one continuous story arch. Every episode with a few exceptions on rare occasions of a few two parters is self contained and standalone where you can watch it in any order and it makes no difference. That series is still referenced to this day. Not every story needs to be long running or have an overarching continuous theme to be considered great.
Also no Queen's Gambit will be remembered I hate to break it to you. It was a hit with critics and audiences.
As you said, it only had one season and so it remains to be seen if people will still be talking about it a year from now.
Batman The Animated series is considered one of the best television series ever. Guess what there is not an overarching theme to the show
Here's how I know you didn't watch the show because there absolutely was over-arching themes to the show.
Re-watch it and see the arch involving Robin that eventually turns him into Night Wing after he disbands from working with Batman. That didn't just happen over the course of just one episode.
Also, the development with Poison Ivy, Joker, Harvey/Two-Face, and especially Mr. Freeze, all developed over multiple episodes over multiple seasons. So no, you're way off about Batman: The Animated Series not having an over-arching plot. Some of the episodes were standalone, but they did connect over time.
share
Now you are backpedaling. You made a statement by saying it will be forgotten now you are saying it remains to be seen. Arrested Development for the longest time was only 3 seasons that show was still talked about before they renewed it and did more seasons. Firefly was only 1 season it has a huge cult following and is rated 9.1 on imdb.
Oh I have the show on blu ray buddy. I watched it all the time as a kid and watch episodes frequently as an adult. I said there was no over arching theme in the vein of something like Dragon Ball Z. It is a lot like Indiana Jones or the old James Bond films. Last Crusade is a sequel to Raiders of the lost Ark. It is not dependent on you seeing Raiders to get or enjoy the film. Other than loose continuity the Indiana Jones films are standalone. Are there things that carry over? Yep but the continuity is nothing like Dragon Ball Z where everything is one long arch. Everything in DBZ is dependent on the over arching theme. It is why I said a few two parters that set up certain characters. Such as Two Face and others. Notice how villains continually pop up and they never explain every time how they get out of Arkham? Sometimes they do but a lot of times they are just present in the new episodes.
So no you are the one who is off. It is not even close to something like Dragon Ball Z, Avatar the Last Airbender, or Breaking Bad. If you pop into the middle of those shows you will be lost as to what is going on.
It is not even close to something like Dragon Ball Z,
Didn't say it was. Said it had continuing story arcs for many of the characters. share
And I never said otherwise. However in terms of a central overarching theme it is not present. I said with a few exceptions and two part episodes there isn't a central overarching theme like Dragonball z. You claimed I never watched it, that couldn't have been a more moronic statement. Anyway as it stands Queens Gambit has more votes than 24 and is rated higher on IMDb than 24 despite only being one season. I know facts hurt and sometimes the things we like get beat by things we dislike. It will be ok don't worry.
shareno retort?
sharebut Harry was never a wizard prodigy. He was actually mediocre as far as wizards go. He just had more experience.
In this analogy, Beth is more like Hermione. Better than everyone else from the start.
she gridded for years as well. she started playing at 6 ( i think) and when she starts winning is like 10 years later. 10 years of study and getting her ass kicked. 10 years of playing all biggest tournaments matches. 10 years of heavy preparation.
it's like saying "Einstein being so smart that even today we don't eve understand it's work is BS".
And to think that the youngest GM is 12 years old. BS?
yes but she stopped playing for a long time before winning her first tourney
shareBeth scoring so many wins is total BS.. man or woman.
Yeah , but when a man does something like that in film the audience is all like :
"Wow , that dude rocks , i want to be able to BE him , i wanna fight off 6 ninjas while hacking into the Kremlin with the other hand , that dude is THE shit man"
And when a woman does anything other than needs rescuing of gets her clothes off its all like:
"feminist propaganda" !
to quote the OP.
moviechatterer agreed 100%.
sharewrong.
when Lara Croft kicks ass people go "YASS"
when Rocky couldn't defeat Apollo in 1976 people understood and went 'YASS"
get it?
; )
i think we are just discussing the odds of a chess prodigy reaching such success with almost no effort.
No, we most definately arnt , we're falling into the trolling of the usual right wing women hating assholes of this site.
If the protagonist had been male , none of this discussion would be happening.
It would not matter that he got too good too quick , cos he's a man.
Same as it was fine when mild mannered archeologist Indiana Jones did all that stuff
>I could never see why people are so opposed to feminism; the idea that women can be the equal of men. Only a caveman would be opposed to that.
Modern feminism has no intentions of equality. Women have more opportunity based on their gender than men do. There are specific programs, organizations, financial incentives and more just for having a vagina. Men are more likely to be homeless, imprisoned, do worse in school, die on the job and more. Modern feminism is what this film represents. A woman glides in and beats man after man in chess without earning any of it, it was created specifically to fulfill feminist power fantasy. Do you know what is real? The greatest chess players of all time have been men.
Those programs exist because for centuries women in the USA (as well as around the world) were a marginalized part of society. Eventually when we get our heads out of our asses in the USA, those programs will not be needed or wanted.
The TV series also shows her losing, to men. The book the show was based on also described more ties and loses in other tournaments.
Beth was not on top at the end of the series; winning at an invitational tournament did not make her the world's best chess player. She was only able to make a name for herself so she could compete in a world championship later on.
Eventually when we get our heads out of our asses in the USA, those programs will not be needed or wanted.
That is literally the complete opposite of what current policies and cultural trends are pointing towards, with even more gender divides being present now than almost at any point in recent history:
Fewer boys graduating than at any point in U.S., history:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/01/12/the-unreported-gender-gap-in-high-school-graduation-rates/
It's across the nation:
https://ir.engr.ncsu.edu/retention-and-graduation-rates/graduation-rates-by-gender/
Women have access to more grants and priorities in fields typically dominated by men based on interest:
https://www.business.gov.au/grants-and-programs/women-in-stem-and-entrepreneurship/women-in-stem-and-entrepreneurship-grant-recipients
Initiatives are specifically designed to encourage and reward women while neglecting men:
https://www.worldwidelearn.com/articles/15-innovative-initiatives-bringing-women-into-stem/
https://www.collegeraptor.com/find-colleges/articles/college-majors-minors/7-organizations-working-to-promote-women-in-stem/
https://en.unesco.org/women-and-girls-in-science/initiatives
There are even social engineering programs designed to displace men in the workplace in order to achieve "gender parity":
https://www.facebook.com/business/m/women-in-gaming
There is no turning back. Misandric feminists will ruin the United States, and destroy the nuclear family, while also ensuring men become second class citizens. It's already that way when it comes to divorce:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlSwsE22nX0
And when it comes to homelessness and joblessness:
https://endhomelessness.org/demographic-data-project-gender-and-individual-homelessness/
Feminism is actually female superiority, and it's disgusting.
share
"I could never see why people are so opposed to feminism; the idea that women can be the equal of men."
Feminism isn't about equality.
One of the nice things about having a common language is the ability to communicate.
From the dictionary;
Definition of feminism
: belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
If feminism is not about equality of the sexes, then what is it?
Let's not pretend, ok? Feminism is filled with RAGING lunatics and hypocrites.
"'We should have the right not to like men': the French writer at centre of literary storm"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/10/french-writer-book-pauline-harmange-i-hate-men-interview
"I'm an angry woman and that's just fine
I've spent the past few weeks criticising Quentin Tarantino, the new Joker movie, Dave Chappelle and Roman Polanski. And the men on the internet have had something to say about it"
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/angry-feminist-woman-joker-quentin-tarantino-polanski-dave-chappelle-a9093401.html
"I fucking hate straight white men but they also turn me on, discuss"
https://twitter.com/sarahcpr/status/1180933230305959937
"This week on Strong Opinions Loosely Held, our host Elisa Kreisinger discusses the current fragility of white men. How has a sudden shift in privilege affected them?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWFwrYnRiE4
Don't waste your breath.
He clearly lives in a bubble and refuses to see. Nothing you would show him could open his eyes, not a thousand of nasty feminazi tweets or radical politicians etc.
There will always be an excuse like "just some radicals" or similar (just like in Islam, the eternal myth of the "tiny radical majority"), continuing to pretend that feminism of today is anything but pure, unfiltered misandry.
It is also telling to take a look at feminists of today. You can recognize them from a mile away... same for SJWs in general. They are almost all ugly, overweight, homosexual and suffer from various mental issues and despite this being such an obvious pattern, certain people will simply continue to close their eyes and pretend otherwise, "because they are good people!".
You can't apply reason against people that chose to be ignorant.
Just because there are freaks that fly any kind of flag be it feminism, chauvinism, CSA, etc does not mean the true meaning of the word is distorted. A person can identify as a feminist without beinging a freak.
Trouble is you think anyone who is a feminist is deranged just for thinking the sexes can all be treated like human beings.
One of the nice things about having a common language is the ability to communicate.
I agree with everything you've said
Ever heard the phrase "Preaching to the converted" ?
What you , and I , and some of the other people here are doing is :
"Preaching to the bitter twisted rabid extremist who will never change his priviledged white far right women hating mind"
Go look up "third-wave feminism" and you'll see how the feminism of today differs from the feminism of the 60s. Feminism today is more like a superiority movement -- all women are beautiful and wonderful and strong and brave and all men are terrible and suffer from toxic masculinity and so on.
shareI could never see why people are so opposed to feminism; the idea that women can be the equal of men. Only a caveman would be opposed to that.
When you create fake female characters because no woman has ever come close to the accomplishments of men in a certain field, that's simply propaganda. You are living in a fantasy world. When there are dozens of GM chess women that regularly compete with the highest caliber men AND WIN, then we are witnessing ACTUAL equality. Until then you are simply lying and getting mad at anyone that doesn't go along with the lie. I have a BIG hint for you, men and women are not equal. Chew on it for a while. Look at the real world and stop being a feminist fantasy moron. share
It was not until 1977 that a woman was recognized as a chess grandmaster. In 1983, the year the novel was written, a female grandmaster was still a bit of a novelty. But they did exist.
Everyone else understands that The Queen's Gambit is a novel, why don't you? That you are so threatened by a novel seem to show how insecure you are.
Are you claiming that women are superior to men? They are better at birthing than men. :)
Women have been playing chess for a LONG time, WAY longer than 1977.... or did you not know that? Recognition of being a grandmaster or not, no woman has every been comparable to men at chess, ever. And from 1977 to now, 45 years, where's all the female chess champions regularly beating the best men if you're asserting what's been holding them back is not being called a grand master? They don't exist. Stop living in your fantasy world.
Women are indeed better than men in some aspects. Men are better than women in some aspects. Like I said, and I know this is going to take a long time to sink into that concrete head of yours... MEN AND WOMEN ARE NOT EQUAL. That's why the pathetic attempts by feminist morons to force gender equality is stupid. That's why this novel and this series is stupid. It's crap propaganda and it does not align with reality.
What part of the word "novel" did you not understand?
It seems that you are very threatened by women in general. Perhaps you need to see a therapist?
I'm too but fortunately in this show the propaganda is somehow on a second plane and didn't bother me.
The rest of the show was really good so ...
Btw, have you ever watched Stargate SG-1?
Luckily, this was not actually based on a true story, but a book written in the 1980s. I read an article that also says that the characters and parts of the story were inspired by real people. Beth, for example, was inspired by two different female chess prodigies that really did live in the 1960s, and much of what the character does is similar to her real-life counterparts. Some of the chess moves and battle plans are also inspired by real-life moves done by these prodigies. Even some of the sexist men who were dismissive of female chess players were inspired by real-life men with the same views. Sadly, the fame, drug addiction, and emotional problems were also reflected in the series.
But you're right, I get tired of the "woke" crap too, particularly when it comes to making the men look like villains and/or stupid, while the women know everything and are perfect.
"Sadly, the fame, drug addiction, and emotional problems were also reflected in the series."???
I would say fortunately, that's what gives the show depth and pulls it from the woke crowd. Paints Beth not as a perfect Mary Sue but as a real human, with problems, that evolves (and a lot of time has just an asshole personality) ...
"But you're right, I get tired of the "woke" crap too, particularly when it comes to making the men look like villains and/or stupid, while the women know everything and are perfect."
I don't think it was the case here. I might be biased because i really liked it :D
I'm saying it's sad, because fame did the same thing to Beth what it has done to many real-life famous kids :( It's hard to watch, because you want to root for this person, and then yell at them to stop what they're doing when they're poisoning their own body to deal with the emotional pain.
shareYou must have watched a different show than the rest of us then. No one in the series was perfect, especially Beth, her mother and the orphanage director. The persons who came closest to being flawless were Benny and Jolene. The people who came closest to being villians were Mr. Wheatley and Ms. Deardorff.
shareGood thing this isn't a film then huh?
share