More Mundane? Dunno...

 So... I got this sensation today, this feeling, of having to be a bit more responsible on account of some people who, well, nothing 'government' like stuff - private people, let's just say that - who have slightly, vaguely, been talking about some things.

Seeing ahead with 'night-vision' cameras...

Anyway, I happen to really respect these people, but it occurred to me, just looking backwards a bit, that the 'motifs' of female glamour, or even sensuality, must have been very 'forced' although I'm not going to say people were forced to dress a certain way, or were forced to look a certain way and really did not want to. I will try and explain myself.

The one thing that stands out to me about the Harvey Weinstein whole 'affair' - is that 'secret video-taping' of his 'moves' on some young person who was put in that invidious situation. Maybe they were placed there by an array of other people - promoters, agents even, other 'interested people' with expectations of 'success;' whatever that meant, and it probably meant a beneficial financial outcome.

He came across not 'just' (if I may even put it that way, but it's the only way I know how to say it right now) as boorish and insensitive and of course, tragically self-opinionated and criminal-minded... ...but utterly and completely, pathetically ignorant and extremely gauche in the way of talking to anyone in private.

He was a complete 'agricultural clod!'

He was an idiot in every sense.

It didn't even seem like he had an actual,
'proper' couch to go 'casting' on...!
LOL

And yet, here he was, some Godzilla producer. As in, he literally was a gigantic identity and a power and a force in the movie industry; not that he had actually 'produced the movie Godzilla!'

Roland Emmerich and TriStar Movies made the Hollywood 1998 blockbuster film of that.

So I think when I look back what I am seeing is someone like Weinstein forcing as if through a sieve, imagery about glamour, iconic semiotics of female 'beauty...'

I don't think he understood either what 'beauty' was/is, nor really did grasp any deeper meaning to the iconic portrayals of 'female beauty' that culture had devised over the years, through the various eras of style and fashion.

What he was doing was 'taking,' seeking to have, to possess, what was held to be 'nice' or better yet - desirable.

And so what you're really getting is a caricature of feminine beauty. The 'connect the dots' depiction of it.

I am musing on whether we might start to see women advance their actual own ideas, and I don't think anyone needs to be 'fearful' that these are not going to outright appeal to men.

Actually, it will be the reverse, because what men will recognize right away, is the authenticity.

I have a good feeling about this. And I have a really good feeling about the future of entertainment and even I would call it a kind of 'adult education, adult cultural/social education' trip that we are going to be taken on shortly.

Yes it's 'red,' but that just implies 'sex' -
it isn't necessarily dystopia.

I believe this.

Yes it will require money, and yes we are right back to that uneasy 'casting couch' pressure but that has to give away somewhere. We need to find the big money backers, so that the authentic cultural expressions can get to the front. Again. I think Howard Hughes was part of the 'getting things to the front.' Absolutely so too was Charlie Chaplin. The man was a genius still not fully appreciated for what he was in so many fields, not just comedy.

Yep. The best is yet to come.

It's a fight, but it's a winnable fight.

The big 'luxury manufacturers,' the big brands, haven't really picked up on this yet. They haven't noticed the motifs of 'now' beauty, 'now' women. And those that do, are going to make a lot of money. But they haven't quite got there yet. They will though. Some will lead.