I wanted to soapbox about the Far Cry 3 trailer myself.
I personally thing the Hitman trailer was alright. It wasn't as controversial as people are making out. People claim it sexualises violence by endorsing violence against women - women dressed as sexy nuns out of context, even though the game is called Absolution, and you can assume there are going to be some religious undertones. It's completely plausible these women represented 47's primary threat in the game. It's not a staggering leap of logic, is it? No. The correct answer is no. In particular I want you to consider that 47 takes no pleasure whatsoever in his task of defending himself.
These women were a threat. Their initial appearance was "Boom! sexy nuns!", then they unleashed fiery hell on 47, or so it seemed. Then he took them out. The violence juxtaposed the sexiness, it was supposed to shock. If you think the violence was sexual, or sexualised, it really says something about YOU, not the trailer. But a few prominent commentators ran with it, and the internet responded.
I trot out the example that if we say Lara Croft gunning down a dozen topless men we'd say nothing, that they're employing a double standard. The commentators insist "oh, women can be killed like men, that makes it equal - but this is SEXUALISED violience".
I disagree.
So I decided to play devil's advocate when I saw the Far Cry 3 trailer. Where's the outrage? The first thing you see is a topless woman. The game repeatedly flashes text at you, "fight, eat, fuck, kill" or something to that effect, stating these words over and over, drilling them in as facts, as if they are necessary for your survival.
Then it really begins. The naked woman croons seductively that you are a killer, that you are the best at killing. All those people you're murdering? They DESERVE to die. This is intercut with scenes of people being shot. Just when you think it's all over? RANDOM STRIPPER POLE. In the jungle, a woman poledancing in a bikini. For no reason that the trailer can adequately establish.
"Surely," I thought, "the people outraged at the Hitman trailer will be up in arms about this. The people who were against sexualised violence, this must be reprihensible to them, right?"
No. No outrage. I posted my thoughts on Twitter. No one could understand where I was coming from. "They're just boobs!" they say, as if I am six years old, and am unfamiliar with the idea of nudity. Then they say "oh, well no one is attacking the woman, so it's not sexual violence."
Bull. Effing. Shit.
In truth, people didn't like seeing 47 kill women. They made up a complex lie to hide this fact. The fact that they, by taking issue with the idea of women as a viable threat and a target for violence, were being sexist. They were robbing women of the right to be targets, putting them below men by wanting them removed from the line of fire.
Neither trailer upsets me. What upsets me is the hypocrisy.
I personally thing the Hitman trailer was alright. It wasn't as controversial as people are making out. People claim it sexualises violence by endorsing violence against women - women dressed as sexy nuns out of context, even though the game is called Absolution, and you can assume there are going to be some religious undertones. It's completely plausible these women represented 47's primary threat in the game. It's not a staggering leap of logic, is it? No. The correct answer is no. In particular I want you to consider that 47 takes no pleasure whatsoever in his task of defending himself.
These women were a threat. Their initial appearance was "Boom! sexy nuns!", then they unleashed fiery hell on 47, or so it seemed. Then he took them out. The violence juxtaposed the sexiness, it was supposed to shock. If you think the violence was sexual, or sexualised, it really says something about YOU, not the trailer. But a few prominent commentators ran with it, and the internet responded.
I trot out the example that if we say Lara Croft gunning down a dozen topless men we'd say nothing, that they're employing a double standard. The commentators insist "oh, women can be killed like men, that makes it equal - but this is SEXUALISED violience".
I disagree.
So I decided to play devil's advocate when I saw the Far Cry 3 trailer. Where's the outrage? The first thing you see is a topless woman. The game repeatedly flashes text at you, "fight, eat, fuck, kill" or something to that effect, stating these words over and over, drilling them in as facts, as if they are necessary for your survival.
Then it really begins. The naked woman croons seductively that you are a killer, that you are the best at killing. All those people you're murdering? They DESERVE to die. This is intercut with scenes of people being shot. Just when you think it's all over? RANDOM STRIPPER POLE. In the jungle, a woman poledancing in a bikini. For no reason that the trailer can adequately establish.
"Surely," I thought, "the people outraged at the Hitman trailer will be up in arms about this. The people who were against sexualised violence, this must be reprihensible to them, right?"
No. No outrage. I posted my thoughts on Twitter. No one could understand where I was coming from. "They're just boobs!" they say, as if I am six years old, and am unfamiliar with the idea of nudity. Then they say "oh, well no one is attacking the woman, so it's not sexual violence."
Bull. Effing. Shit.
In truth, people didn't like seeing 47 kill women. They made up a complex lie to hide this fact. The fact that they, by taking issue with the idea of women as a viable threat and a target for violence, were being sexist. They were robbing women of the right to be targets, putting them below men by wanting them removed from the line of fire.
Neither trailer upsets me. What upsets me is the hypocrisy.
