Jumplion said:
Never did that for you, because you aren't turned on by fetishistic stripper-nuns, therefore it's not sexualized. I would be at ease if you would concede that you understand why others feel bothered by it, I can see your argument of how it won't titillate everyone the same way, but to shut down the opposing argument simply because you aren't attracted personally to this, that's just limiting. Please correct me in what you are saying because this is what I'm getting from you.
Part of it is that I'm trying to speak for intentions rather than aesthetics. Would I have used nun-strippers for a two minute teaser-trailer? Probably not. There's no context for the costume or design, so characterization is largely limited to visuals, and that's something people pretty clearly latched onto. So, more accurately, what's I'm trying to pin down is how the trailer is intended to be seen as a piece of visual media based on the sorts of things your post talks about, such as framing, music, atmosphere, aesthetic, costume, and lighting.
Given this trailer as it is, I don't see the sexual glorification of violence as a primary or principle focus. I don't even see it being a major contributing factor to the nature of the trailer as a whole. The trailer, as best I can see it, is an advertisement for a highly skilled, deadly assassin who will at some point go against trailer counter-operatives as a primary conflict. As far as trailers go, should this be a primary factor in how Hitman: Absolution transpires, then job done well on the director's part.
Beyond that, the only question is whether or not the gratuitous use of the female form is either aggressively sexualized, or used in a pandering manner. To which I have to respond with a pretty disheartened "Not really."
In as far as media goes, the idea of stripper assassins is nothing new. In video games, two prominent features I can think of personally are the "Hot Stripper Assassin Action" sidequest in Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines (2004) and Saints Row: The Third (2011). The pair of these are highly sexual and graphically violent in nature. The lattermost had advertisements that wore comparably much worse in several ways.
So, as much as I would like to say that something to this level of sexuality is as pandering and risque as is suggested, I genuinely don't see it. We've made a society that thrives so intricately on our violences and sexes in entertainment that this genuinely isn't something I feel like we should be surprised over. It's the social structure we've built for ourselves. So when someone does something like this, I feel like they're just adjusting to the trend. Do I condone the behavior? No, I personally thought games like Saints Row: The Third, and the over-sexed vampires in Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines were cheesily overdone. I think that movies by Robert Rodriguez (director of Machete) are likewise so, but our society eats it up, and it grosses well enough to keep doing.
So, honestly, this trailer isn't a step in the wrong direction or overdone. I just think it's a product aimed at its consumers. Us.
The child pornography analogy was apt as that is exactly how you quantified the violence and sexualization. There is no threshold for this kind of stuff. In editing movies and films, especially in animation as the director has complete control over what is emphasized more so than regular films. One has to look at the entire picture for complete context; the music, the composition of each individual frame (as this was an animation, each frame is individually rendered and this is a major thing for animated films), the lighting, mood of the characters, why the characters are dressed like that in the first place. Some people argue that if they were men this would not be an issue, and they're right because men would not be sexualized this heavily with violence.
Do not get me wrong, I can understand why some would be hesitant to calling this fetishizing violence towards women or whatever. I'm not turned on by this sort of stuff, but that doesn't mean I can't see the underlying disturbing tones that this thing can project on to other people.
Well, it comes back to the primary focus. Which is why I bring up the Goldeneye analogy. To my memory, there isn't a Bond film that isn't packed with sexual undertones (and new A-list models turned actresses annually) and an eventual sex scene in existence. However, when I go to see a James Bond film, I'm not going under the pretense that there's going to be all manner of sex. Granted, it will have a place in the film (which I will likely find arbitrary), but it's just a smaller part of what is otherwise an action film, not a porn one.
So when I look at a trailer like this, that happens to have about 4 seconds of what may be PVC and flesh to another minute fifty-seven of any other content, I'm boggled that people can look at it as if this is the jumping point to something altogether or sensual or sinister. It's just a tasteless nun-stripper-assassin squad getting ganked by a bald man in a well-tailored suit.
If we reverse the roles of the narrative, and have an antagonistic professional murderer flanked by a plucky squad of tight-clothed action hero-girls, we'd be looking at the plot synopsis for Charlie's Angels 3: Leather and Lace in Space, and somehow that's more acceptable because it's less glorification of violence because the women aren't the primary victims, despite being sexualized and violent.
In short, even if people can see the primary purpose of their costumes and heeled-swagger (because honestly, you can hardly walk any other way in heels) to be overly sexual, I can't see how this is meant to be a step in the wrong direction or aggressively sexual. I think it's pretty standard for the market we've built as consumers. If anything, I'm surprised they picked this trailer as the aggressor.
There's worse out there [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm5XAfuHsuA]. And we loved it [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/saints-row-the-third].
