mngnm94 To explain what is wrong with this movie's theory here is the description of my political beliefs from my dating profile:I like equal rights, but we need to consider EVERYBODY'S rights while fighting for the rights of minorities. The only thing that is excluded from this is Gay Marriage., because it WON'T affect anybody negatively. For example, Wayne Franzen upped the danger in his tiger act, because animal rights groups started to protest circuses, claiming that ALL circuses were abusive, so he had to make more money to keep his circus going, and, so, upped the danger in his tiger act. The result was... he was KILLED BY A TIGER! Did the animal rights groups, mean for him to DIE? NO! THEY just meant to protect animals, which is a GOOD thing. What they didn't consider is that people make their LIVING being in circuses. What they should have done instead is help develop ways to train animals humanly, so that way, there would STILL be circuses, AND animal rights WOULD protected, both sides win!Fortunately, Wayne Franzen's story is an extreme example, mostly, books and movies get labeled racist, or sexist, or both, because of of progression. This problem is caused by meta analysis, which here means "quantitative statistical analysis that is applied to separate but similar experiments of different and usually independent researchers and that involves pooling the data and using the pooled data to test the effectiveness of the results" (basicly Miss Interpretation) this presents three MAJOR problems:1. Does not treat characters as real people. (We CAN NOT control what race, sex, or sexual orientation we are born with)2. Judges whether the creator of the characters mentioned above as a bigot, WITHOUT talking to them. This thanks to the "Twilight Saga" has made this apply to not only creators of classic books (my favorites) who are dead, but also those who are alive. (Which in most cases the creators of the films featured in this documentary ARE alive and should have been interviewed on screen)3. Ignores the fact this accused media has NOT stopped the progression of human rights, as some EXTREME left people claim it does.4. The First Amendment says people can create any media that expresses any views Media Literacy can claim it does. and the fact that "Miss Representation" says media HAS TO is unconstitutional and American.(The fact that the First Amendment is the last thing I think to point out should disturb you, because like Women's Rights the Right to Freedom of Expression is a HUMAN right)I'll admit it is magical to see a character ALMOST just like you in media, mainly because these people don't know you exist. When a 16-year-old girl said she said the media did not include women like her, I told her a very personal story about my struggle to see myself in media:My Dad died, setting off a chain of events that didn't seem to match any of the "dead Dad" stories in movies, TV shows, and other media. Not even my favorite novel "The Phantom of the Opera" where the women saves two men, matched my own "dead Dad" story. Thus I felt alone. Then I saw "Saving Mr. Banks" six years after my Dad died, and it matched my "dead Dad" story almost exactly! Finally Hollywood had used it's Right to Freedom of Expression to include a women like me, and now everyone will understand what I went though when I reference "Saving Mr, Banks" I am not alone anymore! If you view enough media, I am POSITIVE you find a woman like YOU too.I would give all viewers of "Miss Representation" the same advice. Thanks to the Representation Project however if it works I won't be represented in media anymore, because it takes more than one piece of art to represent the human experience. Most of which will get destroyed by the Representation Test or simply because it was written by men. To fight the Representation Project with me use their website's Contact Us page to tell them how male creators of media have represented you, and use #NotBuyingit on them, using the method of analysis I gave you at the start of this review. Use #MeidaWeLike to support media YOU think is feminist even if the Representation Project says it's sexist. Because sexism in media is only do to Miss Interpretation.

jim-1889 My wife and I watched this documentary last evening. We were disappointed because the film seems extremely shallow and repetitious. It presents a single simple message over and over ad nauseam. Also, we would have liked to have seen some average young women being interviewed - perhaps, some even with conflicting views - rather than the litany of older celebrities who all appeared to being saying the same thing. Unfortunately too, the photos and videos used as examples of how women are depicted as sex objects in the media seem very dated - they looked like they were from the 1980's. This film was a huge disappointment mainly because we were anticipating an intelligent, in-depth treatment of the subject - something the subject deserves.

titus227 This film is meant to address the social distortion present in media as it affects women. I feel this doc fails to point out that this happens to youth in general, not just women. Secondly, it should have been stressed that such a focus on sex & marriage leads to increased teenage pregnancies, which, in turn, contributes to young delinquency and uneducated adults having children who will not attend college or even finish high school. Unfortunately, the majority of this doc consists of a woman obviously reading a print out of monologues in a dull, lifeless monotone. Several speakers chastise the media for reflecting the low number of women working in big business and politics in movies, but most of the thoughts presented are fragmented or inappropriate to the topic. These women say such things like 'Women should be politicians so other women will want to be politicians.' 'Women are never leaders and men don't want us to be. Just look at Star Trek.' These statements seemed to defy the fact that England had Queen rulers for over a century and that Star Trek is and always has been a show that shatters social boundaries, and the different seasons have seen Famale captains, doctors, Science officers, ensigns, engineers, psychologists, and a plethora of other positions. It seemed like this documentary was more interested in talking about hurt feelings than any serious issues. It's as if they interviewed the absolute dumbest women available and said, 'Talk about how movies make women look bad,' then showed 15 min worth of UNSCRIPTED REALITY TV clips while the interviewees stumbled through cliché after cliché, generally never making a solid point, cohesive statement and/or expressing conclusions related or even relevant to what was just said. 'I hate bikinis on TV, so I became a politician after a particularly moving episode of Murder She Wrote.' Lastly, some of the issues blamed on media aren't real issues or controlled by media. Why aren't there more women politicians? Same reason there aren't more women trashmen, fisherman, hunters, mechanics, mathematicians, Footballl coaches or construction workers: Most women are uninterested in such professions. Equally interesting is the idea that men are expected to work successfully at a job that isn't embarrassing, or that the media tells youth to hump like rabbits, accumulate debt & go to jail in hopes of turning us all into consumers rather than producers. Monetary slaves providing a financial battery to the rich. Another point left out is that when the youth have teen pregnancies, who will work? Man or Mother? Usually the man, so it is not more surprising to see more men at work than it is to see wives staying home. I feel that this film is highly destructive to the cause it's attempting to address.

asais I give this a 4 because it was professionally done, in terms of editing and photography, but in terms of content, it really is sub par. Basically this documentary tries to build the case that media is an insidious influence, whenever it is convenient to their case, but ignores any evidence that doesn't fit their theory. For instance if media were so influential, Americans would be thin and fit, but we all know that isn't true. But more to the point the issue with this documentary is that it is not concerned with looking at its arguments in any depth, instead a cheap slogan type of declaration or testimony is put out by some talking head and in a few minutes of selective media clips they try to cover the lack of depth by jumping from topic to topic flooding you with a barrage of clips and speakers. It reminds me more of a political campaign advertisement than a serious documentary really interested in honest examination of an issue.They make points claiming that other countries have had women leaders before us because we don't depict them in the media, but does that even pass quick inspection? Benazir Bhuto who was a female prime minister of Pakistan lead arguably one of the most sexist countries on earth. So how does that argument even pass muster before they put it in the documentary? It epitomizes the level of thinking in this film.Margaret Cho for example claims that sexism was the reason her sitcom failed, but is that really true? Maybe she just isn't funny. It doesn't matter to this film because all they do is throw these statements out there one after another. Statements claiming that shows like jersey shore are sexist because they show women in a bad light are made entirely ignoring the fact that the male cast in those shows are hardly considered respectable either. This type of poorly thought out argument is the basis for the entire film sadly, and because it is so paper thin, they cut from topic to topic in a hyperactive manner.TV networks like FX have even been known to do things like pass on hit shows like Breaking Bad because they rejected the show based on their quest to break into the lucrative female demographic. Apparently the middle aged white lead was enough for them to pass on the show. But such facts do not matter to this film, which assumes sexism is always the answer to every question in the most simplistic way.My problem with films like these is that they are more about employing techniques of propaganda with selective evidence and shallow one sided argument rather than encouraging critical thought about a subject. To promote this as a feminist film is really to give women no credit at all.If one is going to claim that media does women a disservice, I would suggest this film is the most harmful of all. To use the words of Erika Falk PhD from the documentary against herself and the film itself, women like her and this film paint themselves as "more fragile, emotional, and more gullible than men, therefore they are irrational and cannot be trusted in positions of power".