May
08
Tags
The Red Pill (2016)
Throughout film history the documentary stands as a trusted format for documenting the truth. But there are many documentaries that are propaganda films in disguise and The Red Pill (2016) is one of them. Rather than present a balanced perspective on the gender politics behind the Men’s Rights Activists movement (MRA) the film is a vehicle for promoting MRA views.
The Red Pill is the work of American documentarian Cassie Jaye who presents her personal journey from feminist to supporter of the MRA movement. She explains that while looking for inspiration for her next film she stumbled across reports of the ‘rape-culture’ associated with the MRA. Unable to find funding because of the MRA’s right wing connections, the film was eventually crowdfunded despite protests around the world and cancelled screenings in Australia.
The resulting film is mostly talking-heads explaining MRA’s ideology and grievances. It is interspersed with clips where Jaye tearfully monologues her emerging sympathy for the MRA and their claims of systemic discrimination against males. The main examples offered is that 99% of military casualties are male with similar statistical disparities for industrial accidents. Conversely, the number of domestic abuse shelters for men are negligible. The proportion of adverse judicial findings against men in cases involving child custody, domestic violence, and rape are also cited as evidence of male oppression.
If the aim of The Red Pill was to record Jaye’s transition to MRA supporter then it is a success. But if it is to examine the MRA movement in contemporary gender discourse it has limited value. There are glaringly obvious editing biases that even a novice filmmaker could have avoided. For example, there is a complete imbalance between the amount of air-time given to reasonable-sounding MRA voices with sympathetic eye-contact compared to the selective clips of ranting feminists screaming profanities.
The bulk of this repetitive two-hour film is an MRA grievance platform with virtually no countervailing viewpoints or contextual perspective. There is complete silence on the male-dominated historical forces behind MRA statistics. For example, it does not ask why war is a male-driven industry in which old men send young men to battle, nor does it ask why men continue to abuse women and drive them into domestic violence shelters. It is also silent on the many inflammatory public comments made by MRA spokesmen that demean women and condemn feminism. Ironically, the opening scene citing rape-culture is never revisited.
Through its selective inclusion of MRA grievances and its total silence on the systemic analysis of their root causes, this film commits denialism by omission. It’s sympathetic coverage of right-wing masculinist propaganda together with the director’s tearful journey towards MRA fandom is a manipulative use of the documentary format. However, obstructing or banning this film gives it undeserved attention. Most who see it will recognise its ideological bias and myopic conclusions. By renouncing feminism and becoming an MRA spokeswoman, Cassie Jaye is a living example of the persuasive power of the new right-wing masculinist propaganda.
Director: Cassie Jaye
CineMuseFilms 
Sounds utterly dreffle. Thanks for the warning!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for dropping by realthog. I’m not trying to warn viewers off this film as it should be seen by anyone interested in gender politics. But I hope my review alerts viewers to its limitations as a documentary.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I feel sorry for you for listening to this review. The reviewer has obviously not seen the movie and completely overlooks most of the points made. If they did, that show’s a complete lack of comprehension of what is actually happening. This entire review is just an opinion, and you shouldn’t follow others. You should make your own. That’s impossible with a review that, like I said before, shows no understanding of the film
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but I trust the reviewer a good deal more than I trust anonymous commenters who, at a guess, are members of the movie’s crew — especially when they make the Trumpian claim that the reviewer didn’t bother to watch the movie.
You got a bad review. Live with it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a producer of this film you reviewed, I have to question whether you actually watched the whole documentary since many of your points do not represent the film’s content. But it does mimic much of the same misinformation from biased sources which hints to your own deceitful motives. So to suggest that our film is “propaganda”, I think your suggestion more accurately represents a projection of your own biased agenda.
The Red Pill is a fair and objective look at multiple perspectives on the vast array of important issues men and boys face in our society, representing hard facts and statistics, and includes the leading prominent feminist voices on the topic. We most recently was awarded the audience award for Best Documentary at the Louisiana International Film Festival to a diverse audience of women and men, young and old, liberal and conservative. Stating its “propaganda” doesn’t automatically make it so. Since we are not MRAs nor are we politically conservative, nor was the film funded by any men’s organizations, and none of the Kickstarter backers had any creative involvement in the making of this film, your conclusions, of its director and the film, are completely inaccurate and without any merit.
LikeLike
Thank you for commenting here Nena Jaye. For the record, I did watch the entire film without pre-conceptions and I formed my views without mimicking any other viewpoint. My review is strictly on the kind of objective criteria that is commonly used in analysing documentary films. To suggest that I have “deceitful motives” is unwarranted. I have no “biased agenda” in this debate other than to be a film critic and share my knowledge of film analysis to help others judge the film on its merits. I do not advocate banning or obstructing this film (as has happened here in Sydney). My use of the term “propaganda” is both accurate and appropriate given the high level of rhetorical persuasion that is evident in both the director’s extreme polemic role and the anti-feminism of the MRA. In my view, the central role played by the director’s self-acknowledged transition from feminism to MRA supporter exploits the role of documentarian. That there are serious issues faced by men and boys is not under debate, but the film’s major failing is precisely its lack of balance and objectivity in examining the historical and systemic reasons behind the statistics offered by MRA. I appreciate your engagement here and leave it to others to form their own opinions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you indeed watched the “entire” film, and still stand by your inaccuracies in its content, my conclusion is that your viewing comprehension is then lacking and your ability to see the nuanced arguments within the full context of the MRAs and feminist talking head discussions were lost on you.
Also, all of the director’s video diaries demonstrated her internal difficulties in challenging her feminist perspectives. And the director never transitioned from feminist to mra. So that there immediately tells me you did not comprehend her journey.
I agree that the audience ultimately will form their own opinions. And I’ve thoroughly enjoyed speaking to them after the many screenings I’ve attended.
We take documentary filmmaking VERY seriously, and our quest for open dialogue between diverse perspectives and ideologies is our goal. There is no call to action other than compassion and respect for all stories, even if they’re different from ours.
LikeLike
The Red Pill is largely an overview of the social problems experienced by men, social problems that form the impetus for the men’s rights movement. These social problems are largely ignored by the mainstream media and information about them is even suppressed by some sections of society. Because of this, the film does a great service to society by bringing these social problems to light. The criticisms of the film in this review are trivial in comparison.
This review seems eager to describe the men’s rights movement as a right-wing movement. This shows a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’. The cornerstone of the men’s rights movement is empathy for male victims of suicide, murder, workplace accidents, conscription, genital mutilation, etc., and a rejection of traditional gender roles. The idea that this empathy for male victims or this rejection of traditional gender roles is somehow right-wing is a bizarre notion. Presumably a callous attitude to these male victims or an acceptance of traditional gender roles is somehow left-wing? That too is a bizarre notion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
LikeLike
Okay, so you took the blue pill.
When you review a film, it’s preferable that you actually watch it. I don’t think this reviewer actually saw the film because he’s certainly not responding to anything the film said. The film explained that male domestic violence victims are nearly as frequent as female victims. The issue the film is taking is that we are only caring about the female victims, not THAT we care about them.
The idea that there should be “balance” between radicals and reasonable people is absurd. The MRAs who were presented were totally reasonable and spoke for women’s issues as well as men’s issues. The filmmaker did find a reasonable self-described feminist: Herself.
And very few of the feminists she interviewed were ranting lunatics. She interviewed some of the most respected gender issues educators in the field for the partiarchamania side. They were calm and completely wrong. But they were calm.
Again, watch a film before you review it. Or perhaps you couldn’t sit through the film because it damaged your worldview too much, so you just sort of scanned different parts and wrote a review of what you could stand to see.
LikeLike
Thanks for your comments. For the record, I watched the entire film with great interest.
LikeLike
Thanks for your whole efforts on this blog. My niece takes pleasure in conducting research and it’s really obvious why. I notice all of the lively method you deliver functional guidelines by means of the web site and therefore invigorate participation from others on that topic then our own daughter has always been becoming educated so much. Enjoy the rest of the year. You are doing a first class job.
LikeLike
I recently watched this film, in it’s entirety and feel this review to be spot on. While the notion that CJ started out as a feminist and became a MRA supporter was what had spurred my interest at the start she came off as being a supporter from the get go. The lack of time actually looking at gender through history and the effects of that history on the given statistics makes this film come off as compete propaganda. As to military, it was the stated goal of the US Army to have all roles open to women by 2016 (last year) and banned women from active combat as late as 2013 (wiki). Thus effectively all military statistics used in this film are moot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comments Joe; I agree the stats used here are highly problematic which is normal in propaganda films.
LikeLike
The lack of time actually looking at gender through history and the effects of that history on the given statistics makes this film come off as compete propaganda. As to military, it was the stated goal of the US Army to have all roles open to women by 2016 (last year) and banned women from active combat as late as 2013 (wiki). Thus effectively all military statistics used in this film are moot.
Joe,
Do you have any clue how monumentally, ironically contradictory those two objections are? IF the military statistics are moot because of the recent change in US Army policy, then what’s the basis for faulting her on the lack of time spent looking at gender through history? Those military statistics ARE a look at gender through history.
LikeLike
Well, they WERE right;feminism is a religion for some and it’s so holy that they won’t tolerate any other view. I believe the director didn’t clear up the Rape cases she talked about at the beginning of the movie. However, I enjoyed a little bit of bitter truth. And I have to say that I found your review on the movie completely biased and I’d never ever comment on anything if I were as biased as you are.
LikeLike
Hospital admissions a greatly skewed towards female victims. If there is evidence to the contrary, where are the male victims hiding? An emotive, ill researched rant from my perspective and not worth the price of admission unless one has an axe to grind. Even then, not at all satisfying.
Anita
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree entirely but still believe there is value in watching it, if for no other reason than to understand the propaganda of the extreme right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree CineMuse. Until I had actually viewed the film I thought it may have contained some hidden gems. This was obviously not the case and put any such thoughts to rest. For that insight alone, I am grateful.
Claims of violence perpetrated by females against males makes me wonder what is meant by violence. Is it possible that these are the rationalisations made by the Nicole. Kidman character in “Little ,Big Lies”? If you’ve not seen this excellent series, the character would state episodes of violence on both sides, adding herself in the role of perpetrator. This was not the case. Instead, her feeble attempts at self defence were more than compensated by his counter-attacks leaving her battered and bruised.
LikeLiked by 1 person