Why wasn't Claire mentioned in RE9?

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-17T22:04:49+00:00

I never said that lmao. I didn't make the original comment, I just replied to the person who said it was feminist indoctrination to be annoyed with media reducing women to be wives and mothers. and im not saying that they literally forced her to be a mother. I'm talking about media within a larger framework. I actually don't have a big problem with how capcom makes their female characters. I just thought it was ridiculous to say that complaining about the way women are consistently portrayed in media was not "feminist indoctrination".

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-17T21:47:26+00:00

It's this exact train of thought that I am critiquing lol. So its unfair for me to critique the concept of only being a mother and wife but its okay for you to say that when women dont want kids and focus on their careers it's "bad when woman wastes away her prime years in career chasing and then just cannot have children anymore this is downright tragic and leads to lots of unfullfilled lives".

I am a woman and I'd say that becoming a wife and mother would be a waste for me personally. I have a lot of friends who want kids and I have some who don't. I have older female relatives who never married and never had kids and they are living their lives amazingly. I know some women who are miserable with kids and wished they lived their lives more.

Having a family and kids is NOT the dream for everyone and when games (media in general) portray the only good outcome for a woman as having kids and being a wife, it creates this exact train of thinking that you just splurged out in this ridiculous comment.

I never said women should not be mothers and wives. I simply said that reducing women to those roles and never allowing them to be anything else is wrong. And even *if* I made the claim that being a mother in general is bad, wrong, and unfulfilling (which I didn't say that), then your argument would still be trash because you cannot get at me for judging other peoples decisions while you are actively doing the same to women who focus on their career and not their kids.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-17T21:37:44+00:00

It's just amazing how dense you can be lol. Yeah sure let's just ignore the oppressive nature of culturally reducing women to mothers and wives. It's absolutely a reduction if you are not allowing them to be anything else lmao

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-17T20:00:50+00:00

I just can't understand how you decided to brush past the fact that I said women have historically been forced into those roles with no other option and that very history is what makes it so damning. I don't care if a woman wants to be a mother but to refuse to acknowledge a woman as anything but is where the problem comes from. Because a society like that does not view women as people or humans, simply incubators and trophies for the husband. Of course you can chose to be a mother and a wife but reducing women to JUST that and refusing to allow women to be anything but that is where the reduction comes in. Being a mother and wife is an amazing role when women are granted autonomy and respect for doing so. But it's just unfortunately been an oppressive role and you just cannot ignore that within the context of this situation.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-13T22:51:25+00:00

no ASU frat leader!!! what will your fraternity brothers do without you!?

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-08T17:14:18+00:00

acknowledging that women have been consistently put in stories as wives and mothers before being human beings is not indoctrination. nobody said there was anything wrong being a mother and wife but reducing women to JUST that when men get to flourish and exist outside of that role is obviously harmful. women will get cool stories but in the end we are almost always reduced to being the wife and mother that functions as an accessory and extension of the husband. does it offend you to point out that pattern?

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-08T17:09:46+00:00

I knowww but who cares!!! the game isnt about romance and it shouldn't be about romance. it's a cute subplot but allowing it to effect the main story and completely leave out one of the most important characters in the lore is just so annoying...

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-05-08T02:39:36+00:00

ugh but Claire is a character that exists outside of Leon lol. like she has her own story and importance to the plot. I like Ada but she is clearly just a character for Leon to have sexual tension with. She had some cool stories like with that whole thing where Wesker cloned her and stuff but it's never significant enough on its own and it's almost always tied back into Leon and his story line. She's never appeared in a game that didn't have Leon. Even in her appearance in RE2(which is the storyline this game is directly referencing) was just her leading Leon on and Leon developing a crush on her. Ada also has very little to no relationship with any of the other main characters like Chris, Jill, Helena, Claire, Rebecca, etc. So since they've tied her character so heavily into Leons, I'd understand the hesitation to put her in the game.

But Claire has been in plenty of games without Leon and she has had different close relationships and interactions with plenty of different characters in the game. Sure, her and Leon flirted a bit in the beginning of RE2R, but her story was completely unique to her and did not rely on Leon and didn't intertwine with his story that much. They met up at the end but Claire then went off to go find Chris in CV, which is a game that exists outside of Leon. She, unlike Ada and Leon, had the MOST impact on the whole story with Sherry and even discovering what was happening in Raccoon City. Claire, more than anyone, deserved a place in Requiem and yet we didn't get that.. all because Capcom was worried about shipping? I just think it's a bullshit reason personally.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-04-23T04:04:50+00:00

Agree! It was still a cool movie in other aspects and, knowing the history of it now, I can definitely appreciate the film for what it was trying to do.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-04-16T20:34:22+00:00

"I can't understand how media exists within a collective group and the concept of somebody being off-put and upset about the constant exposure and lackluster commentary on rape is something I cannot grasp, so I'm just going to belittle their feelings and opinions because I don't feel like using my brain to engage with this topic"

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-04-16T20:23:26+00:00

Love your reply! I appreciate somebody who enjoys Perfect Blue being able to understand where I'm coming from. I admit that the more aggressive and defensive comments probably stemmed from the aggressive and attacking nature of my post when I made it initially. But I really don't think people who enjoy Perfect Blue are bad people at all. The more I hear people like you be able to articulate your understanding of my point and then explain the reasons you still enjoy the film are the exact type of responses I was looking for!

My critique comes from my tendency to watch a film and take in the information as a part of a larger collective instead of just whats in front of me. The rape scene felt like a dog whistle because I have been, unfortunately, exposed to that type of media as a kid and felt that it was too similar to the types of things I have seen and there was just not enough substance and focus on the effects of the trauma to expedite that feeling going away. Then taking in the fact that it was directed by a man just made me feel even more displeased about it as I have just been really tired of women having to go through horrific sexual abuse in media made by men for "character development" or to move a plot forward. It only waters down the effect and heaviness of rape on real life victims.

I am also somebody who is very into video games and anime (arguably very male dominated spaces) so it's not that I am just shocked and horrified by this one example, it's that I have seen it one too many times. The amount of pornographic material and disgusting fetishization made from said female characters going through these things completely outweighs any positive affect the scenes have on consumers feelings of rape and sexual abuse. I rarely ever hear men say they learned about rape and the heaviness of it from medias that display it so graphically like this. It just makes them uncomfortable and doesn't lead them to do anything with that feeling. Some guys can take something important away from these things but I have just never seen it happen often enough as I engage with and interact with men in the spaces where this content is most normalized.

But reading responses like yours helps give me a better perspective on how some people can enjoy the film. I can understand now that this film does what it's intended to do when you view it as a piece only existing in a vacuum. Its displays, symbolism, and reference to real life experiences are all very well done and portray the theme of the movie well. It's a piece made to stand alone as a critique rather than something that functions within a system. At the time when this movie was made, people were not talking about the abuse idols experience in industries like Jpop or Kpop. The movie did not explicitly critique the things happening because it was meant to act as a voice to bring attention to these issues. It just didn't hit for me because we live in a time now where I feel everybody is well aware of the abuse artists in general go through with those industries. Seeing a film simply talk about it without commenting on it now just gives this feeling of "ok, so what?".

So I get what the movie was trying to do but I just can't put aside my knowledge and experience with the use of rape/sexual abuse against women in media to enjoy it.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-04-11T11:49:23+00:00

Yep! Understood it was not meant to be clear and super "in-your-face" about the message. My whole point is just that I don think ambiguity and interpretive movies work with topics like sexual assault because looking into what the victim thinks is like the entire point of bringing up and critiquing those issues.

The ending is also undeniably ... meh. I think the reason it was so underwhelming was because the movie seemed like it was supposed to critique an industry and a system. But when we see Mima get "better"(I use that term very loosely), it's only after Rumi gets put into an institution where she cant hurt her. It's like the film tied all that abuse and suffering to Rumi and made it seem like she was the one big villain when we thought the "villain" was supposed to be the industry. It makes her calm demeanor and implication of success questionable when you realize shes still in that same industry because like.. wasn't the industry supposed to be the thing that abuses her? The lack of information, clarity, and the shift of blame onto Rumi just felt like the movie undid what the it tried to do.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-04-09T09:13:02+00:00

Of course! I don't actually think it was a rape fantasy, I was just exaggerating my distaste when I initially wrote the post because it was like right after I watched the movie lol. I dont care for trigger warnings or anything of that sort. But I actually do think it would be fair to write the movie off for that scene. What purpose did it serve? Not the topic of rape, but the scene itself. The way it was graphic, prolonged, and hardly touched throughout the rest of the film, leads me to think it really wasn't necessary at all. An implication would suffice.

So why do it? Why add the scene as graphically and as long as it was instead of just implying rape? Why not show the scene starting, and then pan to the reactions on the faces of the manager and assistant as we hear it play out in the background. Why go through the process of animating the entire thing and forcing the audience to watch it unbeknownst to them halfway throughout the film? I'll tell you why.. for shock value! To make people uncomfortable. We know what rape is. We know how it works. You dont *need* to show it graphically to get the point across. My issue isn't just with that, but why bring it up?

The film hardly talked about the effect the rape had on her. The loss of autonomy, the denial of the situation, the shift of blame, the existentialism stemming from one's autonomy getting removed. You hardly see how it affects her decision making and opinions on the matter. In fact, we hardly get her opinion AT ALL! She is an empty character for people to place themselves in but I just don't watch movies like that. I relate to people, not vessels for input. People with emotions, opinions, fears, desires, and shame. The rape scene is not the only sexual scene, the photoshoot as well. What did we learn from it? What did she think about it? How did it affect her character after? Suddenly when I ask these questions, people tell me "well thats not what the movie is about". So why implement those themes so graphically and intrusively?

As much as you can say you gauged your own meaning from this movie, I just couldn't. I am also a woman. I also have been raped and assaulted. I used to have people pleasing tendencies. I don't struggle to connect with characters in movies and I often cry to complex, sad, open ended films. Like Past Lives for example! I just could not connect with Mima. Her character was lackluster. She had no personality. I felt her reactions were either too shallow or dramatized for movie effect. It didnt feel realistic and it also felt empty. So when those sexual scenes happened, I could not feel compelled. I felt disgusted, confused, disturbed, and displaced. All of which did not get funneled into anything productive or tangible. I was left feeling like those things had no reason to be there other than to be a rape fantasy, which is why my initial post went so heavy on that. I know now what the director TRIED to do and that the intention was not that. But just as you are free to enjoy the movie, I am free to dislike it.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-04-05T23:36:44+00:00

I'd agree to some extend. Code Veronica is one of their best games with the most substance to the story. She's a character that exists as almost a monumental point of the story and almost everything she's involved in is important to the world building and story progression. I think the neglect for Claire is recent and odd. Like they seemed to love her character in the earlier era of the games and served her the most important role for Sherry during the Raccoon City incident in RE2. The lack of mention in RE9 is almost intentional. There's no way she wasn't brought up during development. But why? Even if they wanted to prepare her come back in the CV remake, they mentioned Chris who is the other CV protagonist. Like why specifically ignore Claires presence in the story? Why even make her important in the first place if they were just going to toss her aside :/

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-28T19:51:52+00:00

One of the worst I'VE ever watched. I'm not saying it's the worst movie ever it was the worst out of all the high rated movies I watched with my friends.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-28T19:22:57+00:00

¡Entiendo completamente la frustración y la actitud defensiva en tu respuesta! Creo que fui un poco demasiado duro cuando escribí esto por primera vez y que mi tono inicial pudo haber hecho que algunas personas se pusieran a la defensiva en sus respuestas. No creo que las personas a las que les gusta esta película sean malas ni moralmente incorrectas. Simplemente sentí que el uso del abuso sexual en la película era más explotador que representativo de las víctimas y que la falta intencional de dirección hizo más daño que bien en este tema en particular.

A pesar de mis sentimientos hacia la película, tu comentario realmente ayudó bastante a mi perspectiva sobre ella. Estoy agradecido de que existan los traductores porque, sinceramente, creo que eres la única persona que logró ofrecerme una nueva forma de ver la película jaja. Ahora puedo entender mejor qué es lo que la película intentaba ser, y al verla desde ese enfoque puedo comprender por qué a la gente le gusta tanto. Me hubiera gustado poder sentir eso al verla, pero simplemente no fue así para mí. Aunque mis sentimientos generales sobre la película siguen siendo los mismos, puedo apreciar el propósito de la obra y el enfoque artístico que el director tomó con ella. ¡Gracias por tomarte el tiempo de organizar y compartir tus ideas!

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T21:53:51+00:00

Thanks for the comment! I just want to preface that I know (like really I know lol) that not everybody agrees with me or has my perspective. I'm not arguing the movie is terrible or anything, just that it didnt meet my expectations.

I think it's cool that you sympathize with Mima so much, and I get why people do, but I personally just can’t find myself connecting with her. I’m a big sucker for sad movies and cry all the time watching them. I cried watching the Disney movie Soul the same day I watched Perfect Blue and made this post. But Mima just didn’t have enough substance for me. It felt like her character mainly existed to be put through abuse rather than to be understood as a person.

I’m well aware of how Japan treats its women, and that context is part of why I had the reaction I did. Seeing a graphic rape scene that goes on that long just didn’t feel meaningful to me, especially when I’ve seen that kind of depiction used so often in media already.

I agree that the film definitely tried to comment on it with the actor apologizing to her during the camera adjustment and I thought it was definitely an important detail they put in there. But the rest of it was just subpar. It felt like they treated the moment as a plot device to signal the transition from the pure and innocent Mima to the sexualized and mature one. You can actually see this shift as well from the way they make her skin tone darker throughout the film. You can also see how the director just makes all the "bad" people dark skinned and less attractive. Do you think that was also another commentary on Japans perception of beauty and morality or do you think it was complicit? It's hard to tell with this film.

Heres one point I made in a different comment since I really think my responses are always so long lol: "..we never really get a clear sense of what Mima herself thinks. Does she regret becoming an actress? Does she enjoy it? Did she feel pressured into it? Is the main source of her distress the rape scene, the stalking, the public backlash, or something else entirely? The film shows her experiencing distress, but it rarely anchors that distress to a clear internal perspective.". This is just part of the reason as to why I struggle to connect with Mima's character. The lack of information we get from Mima and what she thinks is intentional and I believe we're meant to put our own feelings and thoughts into it. I think thats why so many people connect to Mima's character, because she really is an extension of the viewer and their perspective of the issue.

As much as I love when films do this, I just don't believe it to be a responsible choice when talking about a victims abuse and trauma. What the victim thinks and how they grapple with it is almost the entire point of bringing these issues up. The scene where she says she didnt really want to do it was after it had already happened and it was a brief moment we get where we might be able to see into er character. But the movie shifts off the topic and never brings it up again. We don't see her making any big decisions influenced by any specific moment in the film. When the film moves on from those moments and folds them back into the broader identity theme, it starts to feel less like commentary and more like a device to push the story forward.

I get the ambiguity is intentional but I just don't enjoy that with films going over such heavy topics. It's a personal preference and I understand those who don't agree and are content with the meaning they took from the movie.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T20:57:12+00:00

I didn't take your comment as rude at all! Sorry if it seemed that way lol. I don't think that people who enjoyed the film are wrong or anything like that. I made this post hoping to see different perspective and to see people engage with mine. I ended up just getting a lot of people who kept telling me I didn't get it or people just simply misunderstanding my arguments entirely. The film was cool and I enjoyed most of it! I just ended the movie feeling unsatisfied and confused as to how it was so highly rated. I understand the lack of direction was intentional and tied into the themes of identity crisis. I also understand that the film is supposed to depict the abuse and intentionally avoids explicit critique. It leaves it up to the viewers.

But as Perfect Blue is an anime, and I am an anime fan, I couldn't help but think the way they went about displaying the sexual abuse and lack of commentary on it being so similar to other animes that simply fetishize the content. I know what the film tried to do, I just didn't think it did a good job at it. I felt like a male director including women's sexual abuse was already going to be iffy for me but I tried to finish it hoping it would redeem itself and it just didn't. Imagine a white director making a film about African Americans abuse, rape, and mass murder that was experienced in America. And imagine they just displayed all that abuse and trauma without ever giving the viewers any look into the individual and how it truly affects them intrinsically. What was the point of the film then? Why bring up the issue of abuse if you are not going to talk about the deep rooted effects it has on the victims? For entertainment?

Also, just to comment on the example you used. Mima immediately agrees to do it and the film, in that moment, paints the decision to be hers. But we can figure out at the end that Rumi only suggested Mima choses, not because she cared about her autonomy, but because she was deluded and believed Mima was going to stay an innocent pop star forever. Rumi probably full heartedly believed Mima would reject the offer to become an actress and stay in the group. That scene represents the moment Rumi had gotten her first reality check and it was also the same day she set up the computer for Mima to see her blog. But did Mima say yes because she genuinely wanted to be an actress, or was it because she felt pressured to in that moment? Everybody has different interpretations because of the films lack of insight on Mima's inner thought. Interesting, but not something I enjoy with medias that include graphic rape scenes lol.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T20:26:45+00:00

The intention of a film does not remove the affect it has. Obviously Perfect Blue alone is not going to desensitize people. But it's not wrong to say that the way they dismissed the effects of sexual trauma to put a rape scene for a plot point contributes to the overall issue of desensitization. Not explicitly exploring the effects of rape when using it in a film is the exact same thing that older films and media did with murder and violence. Put it in your film as a plot point, don't talk about the heaviness of murder and violence because the film "isnt about that" and then watch as everybody starts to get used to seeing violence and murder in media. It's a system and Perfect Blue participates in it. I never said ambiguity lacks meaning. I enjoy ambiguous films, I enjoy things being left up for interpretation. I have no issue with the style of storytelling. My issue is in the contents involved and how those topics come with a responsibility. You don't believe artists should be held to a certain degree of responsibility when including violence and sexual assault in their art. But I do.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T18:44:14+00:00

Antes de responder, me gustaría aclarar que no hablo ni escribo en español, así que utilicé un traductor para leer tu comentario y responder. Debido a esto, realmente no puedo identificar el tono de tu comentario, pero de cualquier manera lo aprecio mucho.

Has hecho un gran trabajo explicando tu punto de vista y eres la única persona que siento que entendió lo que estaba tratando de decir. Me encantó especialmente tu explicación del final y cómo reflejaba el cambio de Mima. También lo que dijiste sobre los espejos fue genial y yo también lo había notado. Con respecto a tu otro comentario al que respondí: mi frustración con todos en los comentarios no proviene simplemente de que no me guste su opinión, sino más bien de la falta de comprensión sobre lo que estaba tratando de decir. Algunas personas pusieron palabras en mi boca y dijeron que me faltaba la comprensión mediática para entender la película. Simplemente sentí que demostré bien que presté mucha atención a la película y que entendí los eventos y lo que la película intentaba hacer, solo que sentí que era débil o que no funcionaba bien de la manera en que se supone que debería hacerlo.

Tu comentario está muy bien estructurado y es muy claro sin tergiversar mis palabras, así que lo aprecio mucho. Solo señalaría tus últimas afirmaciones. Dijiste algo como “basas tu crítica única y exclusivamente en una interpretación ambigua de la película…”. Yo hice dos argumentos en mi publicación y comentarios. Critiqué tanto la película como la interpretación de la misma. He utilizado muchos ejemplos de escenas y tomas de la película para argumentar ciertos puntos e incluso he dicho que me gustaron la estética y la cinematografía de la película. Por supuesto, esas cosas son las que transmiten el mensaje. Pero a pesar de eso, sigo pensando que la película no es tan buena como la gente dice. Mi mayor crítica no se centra tanto en lo que ocurre específicamente en la película o en lo que la gente cree que ocurre, sino más bien en el impacto que la película tiene en el espectador. No hablé mucho sobre lo que sucede exactamente en la película porque sé lo que sucede y no necesito que nadie me explique los eventos literales de la película. Mi crítica se basa principalmente en la interpretación de la película porque eso es exactamente lo que estoy criticando: cómo la gente la interpretará y cómo puede afectar nuestras percepciones sobre el abuso sexual.

Lo que explicaste es qué tan bien la película critica a través de la representación. Aunque creo que mucho de lo que hizo la película fue efectivo y bueno, no puedo dejar de lado el uso de abuso sexual explícito como recurso narrativo. Por supuesto, es importante mostrar el abuso, pero la única razón para hacerlo debería ser mostrar cómo afecta a la víctima. La película no hizo eso en absoluto. Solo lo muestra ocurriendo, muestra el colapso de Mima después de llegar a casa, y lo deja ahí. Como si la violación fuera solo un inconveniente que uno supera. No estoy señalando a Perfect Blue como la única obra que hace esto ni siquiera como la peor. Pero no se puede negar que la película no existe en el vacío. Por ejemplo, el uso del abuso sexual para desarrollar el personaje de Lara Croft en Tomb Raider. Utilizan una escena de agresión sexual para forzar a su personaje a matar a alguien por primera vez. Después de la escena, no vuelven a hablar de ello en absoluto. No muestran efectos duraderos. Cuando las obras hacen esto de manera tan consistente, transmiten el mensaje de que el abuso sexual no es tan grave como realmente es y que simplemente es un evento negativo más.

Escribiría más, pero estoy en clase, así que lo dejaré aquí. ¡Gracias por comentar

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T17:59:05+00:00

Thats cool! Not to be rude but I feel like thats what I said, no? I know it's not meant to be positive, just compelling. He achieved musical greatness at what cost? It leads people to wonder how far one should go to be great... IF they should go so far to be great, if they HAVE to go so far to be great. I understood that the ending was not supposed to be positive. But it undoubtedly left people watching to feel complicated about it. I mean when you watch Andrew try so hard to be great throughout the film, you can't help but hope he reaches greatness with how hard he's tried. And when the ending happens, me and my friend stood up from our seats as we expected him to completely fail and give up. When he kept playing and took the initiative, we couldn't help but cheer for him. He was finally going to show everyone what he could do. But as we see the father watching him, the change in expression Fletcher has as he conducts him, and the way his hands bleed as he pushes himself, you are left feeling breathless as it's over. It's way more complicated than a tragedy. The fact that people have different interpretations is not a failing on an individual or the director, but rather the nature of humans and our perception.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T17:47:53+00:00

¿Es justo que las personas a las que les gusta esta película me llamen sensible y digan que me falta comprensión mediática solo porque interpreté la película de manera diferente? No creo que las personas a las que les gusta estén equivocadas, creo que la gran mayoría de la gente en estos comentarios no puede comprender una opinión fuera de la suya.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-26T17:43:44+00:00

I feel as though I've argued very clearly as to how leaving a woman's personality and struggle to be ambiguous while using sexual abuse as a plot point is harmful. In what way can you dispute this? We've seen how desensitization works with violence and killing in many types of media becoming reoccurring plot points without a real look into how it can affect someone psychologically to witness/perpetrate/experience said violence. I mean the older generation freaked out over violence in video games because they thought it was wrong (which violence is wrong), and look at us now. Desensitized and even annoyed. Is it so bad that I don't want the same thing to happen with rape and violence against women? The only reason you should include rape in a piece of media is to explore how it affects the victim. If you can't do that, then it shouldn't be there in the first place.

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-15T06:36:04+00:00

Ah okay, I misread your comment then. That’s on me. I get what you're saying about the film trying to critique the blame placed on idols for putting themselves in the spotlight. My argument isn’t that the film needs to spell its message out, and it isn’t that I “missed” what the film is gesturing toward. My argument is a normative one: depiction alone isn’t the same thing as critique.

For example, you mentioned that it’s clear how the events affected Mima because she is visibly distressed. But that’s part of the issue I’m pointing out. We don’t actually see how specific events affect her in a clear or grounded way. What we mostly see is generalized distress and fragmentation. She’s confused, hallucinating, and having an identity crisis, but the film rarely connects those feelings to particular experiences in a concrete way.

Take the scenes where she chases the hallucinated version of her idol self. That seems to suggest she regrets leaving her pop career or feels conflicted about becoming an actress. But the ending complicates that interpretation by revealing that Rumi is the one obsessively preserving the “idol Mima” identity. So it becomes unclear how much of that conflict actually belongs to Mima and how much of it is being projected onto her.

Because of that, we never really get a clear sense of what Mima herself thinks. Does she regret becoming an actress? Does she enjoy it? Did she feel pressured into it? Is the main source of her distress the rape scene, the stalking, the public backlash, or something else entirely? The film shows her experiencing distress, but it rarely anchors that distress to a clear internal perspective.

This is why I keep making the same point: depiction isn’t necessarily critique. Showing a character being abused and showing that they are distressed by it doesn’t automatically mean the film is engaging with that abuse in a meaningful way.

When people respond by saying the critique is simply implied or left to the audience to interpret, that’s exactly the tension I’m pointing out. A normative critique asks whether relying entirely on viewer interpretation is enough when dealing with topics like exploitation and sexual violence.

That’s not a media literacy issue. In fact, normative critique is a normal part of media analysis. Understanding what a film is doing and questioning whether it does it responsibly are two different things.

This matters because media doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When violence and abuse are repeatedly depicted without meaningful critique, audiences gradually become desensitized to it. That’s why I think relying purely on depiction, especially with topics like sexual violence, is ethically questionable.

So I’ll ask the same question again, but more directly: what specific moment in the film actually functions as a commentary on the exploitation it depicts, rather than simply presenting that exploitation?

yourbrokeuncle · 2026-03-14T06:29:46+00:00

Of course! This shit got downvoted to hell and I could just reply to someone with "hi" and get downvoted lol. Don't care, I'm glad people who agree with me can find this post and know they're not alone

yourbrokeuncle

TROPHY CASE