I had a review deleted and then IMdB reinstated it and now it's deleted again. Can you help, please?

  • 3
  • Problem
  • Updated 3 months ago
  • Solved
  • (Edited)
I had a review deleted and then IMdB reinstated it and now it's deleted again. I think it's being targeted for censorship because it talked about gender issues. It was a very popular and highly upvoted review of the 2017 Murder on the Orient Express. Can you reinstate it again, please? The IMdB person who reinstated it before is "Michelle." You can read the original thread titled "My review was deleted and it did not violate the guidelines. How do I appeal? This is targeted politicized censorship." here: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/my-review-was-deleted-and-it-did-not-violate-the-guidelines-...
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes

Posted 3 months ago

  • 3
Photo of ACT_1

ACT_1

  • 3284 Posts
  • 3102 Reply Likes

( This may get merged with your other message )


Murder on the Orient Express  (2017)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3402236/reference
Kenneth Branagh   ...  Hercule Poirot 
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3402236/reviews - 735 Reviews

- - -

amylunabelly
IMDb member since December 2015
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur64187819/
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur64187819/reviews - 5 Reviews

YOU see anything here ? ?
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur64187819/comments-deleted

This goes back to
https://www.imdb.com/user/ur64187819/reviews

- - -

See:

Deleted Reviews coming back any time soon?
https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/deleted-reviews-coming-back-any-time-soon

What was previously found via
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0000000/comments-deleted
Any news here, imdb staff?
.

(Edited)
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
It would appear that IMdB is a house divided against itself. My review was approved, then deleted, then reinstated, then deleted again. As I originally said, I think this points to bias in the IMdB editorial staff. Which makes all of IMdB reviews suspect, if there's a bias about which reviews are allowed and which are censored--and why. Rotten Tomatoes has taken action to avoid this bias. At least they are addressing the situation. It's just part and parcel of how so much of media is still holding on desperately to archaic gender binary tropes, from what movies get made, to what reviews get a platform and which ones don't. Here's the content of my review:

We actually know what Agatha Christie would have thought of Kenneth Branaugh's bastardization of "Murder on the Orient Express." She predicted, in "Mrs. McGinty's Dead," that some idiot would dramatize her books by adding sex and violence that was not in her original work and hypermasculinizing Poirot, while dumbing down her expert character development in a way that insults the audience's intelligence. She knew it had to happen. And it has.

So much about this movie was so bad, it was laughable. Branaugh's heavy handed direction--"Look at me everybody! I'm so clever! I'm going to put Poirot on top of the train! underneath the train! on the side of the train! And film the train from every possible angle like a fight scene from the Batman TV series!" was the worst kind of in your face grandstanding directing. The shots from above--and I mean directly ABOVE--the action were simply ridiculous.

Branaugh even MADE SURE we ALL KNEW his Poirot was HETEROSEXUAL by repeated non sequitur contrived references to a young, thin, pretty, white female love interest in a photo who had about as many lines (none) as the "prostitute" added to a scene with the creeped up Monsieur Bouc character, whose only line was to gush over meeting Poirot, when she wasn't simpering like a child. I honestly have never been so repulsed by a handsome male character in my life as Bouc's predatory lecher.

What the heck was Branaugh thinking? The only thing worse than dumbing down and sexing up the story with psychopathic violence and creepy lechers was the hitting- you-over-the-head-with-oh-so-unsubtle white savior references to the terrible evils of RACISM!!! Please, someone save us from Hollywood white male liberals bending over backwards to be politically correct about race and thinking they are sooooo progressive while maintaining the worst female madonna/whore lampshade character tropes and adding stabbings, guns, fist fights and shootings not in the original story. 

"Yes, I took a masterpiece and made it into a self serving piece of crap--but that's OK, because there's a black doctor who gets to make some great speeches about how his white male friend helped him get into med school."

So...let's review. Branaugh ADDED to Christie's original story 1) Poirot's righteous finger pointing at the horrors of racism (adding an empowered black MALE character) and 2) Poirot chuckling with his buddy (wink wink) about buying and selling women for sex. In 1934. In Istanbul. Creating a disempowered female character known as "the prostitute" who does not even get a name and whose entire narrative purpose is to stroke Branaugh/Poirot's ego and 3) adding a female love interest whose only narrative purpose is to proof Branaugh/Poirot's "manhood" who is literally an inanimate photograph and 4) male characters punching walls, fist fighting, stabbing and shooting people and 5) giving Poirot himself characteristics completely antithetical to Christie's beloved detective. As if we needed any more proof of Hollywood's hypocrisy in the treatment of women and sex in our films and normalizing toxic gender stereotypes in both male and female characters.

And the script! It read like some high school freshman TRYING to sound erudite. "Overt overture?" Uh...I was waiting for them to serve a "cheesy cheeseburger" in the dining car. Many of the lines would have been more appropriate in a Steven Seagal movie--"Why won't you DIE!" What!??!?!

Only a fool would take one of the masterpieces of British literature by the great Agatha Christie and make it into a pandering show of ego and arrogance, while insulting the audience's intelligence and perverting Christie's moral dilemma on the definition of justice into a tale of vigilantism and revenge by a bunch of thugs little better than the man they murdered. I am HORRIFIED to think a whole new generation will think THIS detritus has anything to do with Agatha Christie's novel. If I could, I would give this film negative stars.

Do yourself a favor. Watch David Suchet's virtuoso performance in the 2010 Murder on the Orient Express. That production did Christie justice and then some. Or better yet, read the book. Remember reading? Then you'll know that Branaugh should be tarred and feathered for what he did to her epic magnum opus.

No, Ken, you didn't have to mutate Christie's story to pander to today's audiences. She is literally the best selling author of all time. Christie needs no help. She appealed to people's humanity and intelligence, creating one of the most popular characters in the history of literature, not to mention a pantheon of assertive female characters and humane male characters, breaking stereotypes 80 years ago that, unfortunately, still survive today. All you did was play to the lowest common denominator, appealing to our baser instincts while maintaining arguably the most brilliant whodunnit plot of all time. So, new audiences think this "cheesy cheeseburger" is great, not realizing that they could have had filet mignon.

And the tragedy is--she even predicted you would do it. Strip her legacy of it's intelligence and humanity, add male and female stereotypes and neanderthal violence all the while using her brilliant plot to make money. 

And you STILL did it.

(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12261 Posts
  • 13935 Reply Likes
I think the whole editorial staff should do a thumbs up or down on this review. The findings of the vote puts it in or out.

Personally I give it a thumbs down on incessant whining about Branaugh.
Nothing personal mind you!
Cheers
Photo of Jeorj Euler

Jeorj Euler

  • 6815 Posts
  • 8535 Reply Likes
The movie got off on the wrong foot, and did it on purpose.
Photo of IMDbmember

IMDbmember

  • 69 Posts
  • 131 Reply Likes
That's a well-written review--especially compared to the vast majority of trash passed off as reviews and published on the website.  Agree with it or not--and I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know--it presents a solid argument with evidence and context.

I don't know about "archaic gender binary tropes" having anything to do with the rejection of the review, although IMDb does seem to be overly and inconsistently aggressive sometimes in barring politics in reviews.  It would be ridiculous if that were the case here.

Also, I've had reviews myself that were declined for such seemingly-acceptable words as "bastardization," while others with the same words are approved.

I wish the staff would spend time clearing the review sections of illiterate and uninteresting one-to-two sentence clutter instead of bothering to try to purge the heap of any of the few actual reviews hidden in there.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12261 Posts
  • 13935 Reply Likes
the staff would spend time clearing the review sections
I do that in my spare time as a contributor. The staff does not do it. They just approve the deletion contributions. Or Not!
(Edited)
Photo of Will

Will, Official Rep

  • 3356 Posts
  • 3847 Reply Likes
Thanks Amy. Ed is correct, though we should have rejected the attempt to remove the review. I've reinstated it now and taken further internal steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

Regards,
Will
Photo of Nick Burfle

Nick Burfle

  • 87 Posts
  • 114 Reply Likes
Thanks, Will.  For what it's worth, I think that while it may be possible to review a film that addresses real life without commenting on real world events in the review, as the guidelines seem to imply would be required, the result would surely be meaningless.  And I would be sorely disappointed, if for example a review of a documentary failed to identify matters that weren't addressed but should have been.  Amy's review does not contain the ranting and slurring that is common in some of the worst reviews, and you're right, it never should have been rejected.
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Thanks, Will. Much appreciated. I hope the steps you took solve the problem permanently. 
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Hey, Will. I'm troubled that "contributors" like Ed can just randomly submit reviews to be deleted (since it seems that happened to mine twice). I wonder if you would take the time to read through this comment thread in which he bullies and gaslights me with personal attacks, insists that his personal bias is objective and repeatedly changes the subject to score points. I'm wondering how and why my review was able to be deleted not once but twice, since we've determined 1) it does not violate IMDb policies and 2) It's in the top 2% (out of 736 user reviews) of reviews that users found "helpful." Perhaps Ed's troubling dynamics also exist within your staff? Possibly?
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12261 Posts
  • 13935 Reply Likes
I did not have to look far to find that your review is "The" #1 Downvoted review.
224 Dislikes/Not helpful.
I only point out the obvious.
The truth is not gaslighting.
The truth is not Bullying.
And I only report reviews that don't review the title. Not ones I disagree with.
When I disagree with a review I vote on it.
Don't attempt to extrapolate what you believe to be true from your biased opinion of what constitutes truth.
If you'll recall way up above here I said "Nothing Personal"!
You are the attacker. I am replying to you with truths and facts from your own statements. Nothing more.
Cheers

Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
Now Ed is doubling down with more bad logic, gaslighting--and now we've got false equivalencies added to the mix.

1) "I said 'nothing personal.'"

According to Ed's logic, if I rob you and say "I'm not robbing you." then I haven't robbed you. Good to know. That will help to keep my bank account flush. :)

2) Talking about a person's specific stated ideas (as they stated them) and their demonstrated behaviors (gaslighting, etc.) is fair game and is not evidence that a person needs to examine their soul. On the contrary, both are necessary to a civil, thinking society. Making global statements about a person's character (such as them needing to examine their soul) is by definition controlling, bullying and gaslighting. It's also the ad hominem fallacy of argumentation. Just bad form overall.

3) People who bully don't like boundaries and having their ideas and behaviors criticized, so they will characterize boundaries and critiques of their stated ideas and demonstrated behaviors as "attacking." People who have normalized bullying also don't hear their own attacks--because they've normalized bullying--like telling someone to examine their soul. So, they don't hear their own bullying and hear others' boundaries (and calling them out on their bullying) as bullying THEM. Hence the false equivalency "You're the attacker."

Uh...nope. :)

4) My review had the second highest overall votes. Which means, that of the 736 reviews, mine was extremely high ranking for how many people read it. My review is ranked 13th for "helpfulness" with means that a 57% upvote ratio is actually in the top 2% of all reviews--making that a darn high ratio, comparatively speaking. My review also had the most down votes, sure. But that's more a function of the popularity of the review than its value to readers. It's "helpful" "upvoted" value is in the top 2% of all reviews. Period. That's a fact, Jack. :) Ed's negative opinion of my review is clearly and firmly in the minority of all those who read my review. His incessant need to try and skew "his truth" about my review being "the truth" about my review, despite the evidence to the contrary (a literal vote tally), continues to be a troubling indication that there is more at work here, under the surface, than a good faith assessment of my review.

Btw, in case you're wondering how I've developed the ability to analyze people's words so well, you can thank Agatha Christie for that.

Which is why I felt so passionately about Branaugh's bastardization of her work. We need more critical thinkers debating ideas with solid logic and less poor reasoning, bullying and gaslighting in this world. We also need more strong, righteous, persistent voices willing to call out bullying, gaslighting--and the unethical appropriation of a revered artist's work for personal profit. <3









(Edited)
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
As to my claim that there are "archaic gender binary tropes" at work here, I think we can see some evidence of bias, just in this comment thread. Ed Jones (who apparently reviews reviews for deletion, if I'm understanding him correctly) heard my review as "incessant whining." While the user IMDbmember characterized the same review as "well written" that presents a "solid argument with evidence and context." 

There is research that men with an unconscious implicit sexist bias hear women's voices as "whiney," regardless of content. That confirmation bias then negatively colors their assessment of the content.

The person (male or female) pointing out the problem is not the problem. When a director perverts a work of literature as blatantly and unethically as Branaugh did (and as I demonstrated with a "solid argument with evidence and context") calling him out on it is not "whining." On the contrary, since my review is the second highest upvoted review out of hundreds, it would appear that Ed's opinion is not shared by the majority of people reading my review.

Again, I believe this points to the need for education for the people involved in the process of how IMDb reviews its reviews. 
(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12185 Posts
  • 13837 Reply Likes
Nick said it.
I thought it, but did not broach the subject.
You confirmed it.
Oh, and I guess "tarred and feathered" is the incitement to violence?
Look, your review was "angry".
It lashed out in an angry tone.
It rhetorically asked that violence be done to an individual.
If you cannot see this, then I wont say what you need.
Look inward please and "Be Kind..... Rewind" Your soul that is!
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
And thanks for acknowledging that gender bias is a "serious subject." :)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12185 Posts
  • 13837 Reply Likes
Angry again I see.
“We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.”
― Maya Angelou
Photo of Nick Burfle

Nick Burfle

  • 87 Posts
  • 114 Reply Likes
I must once again apologize for my sloppy communication.  Yes, the "incitement to violence" was referring to Ed's tar and feather comment, which I assume he used as an example of hyperbole and not as a serious recommendation of how to express one's opinion.  (One review I read a long time ago urged whoever saw director Peter Greenaway to punch him in the nose, which I feel goes too far.  )

I may not be fond of your review, but I wholeheartedly agree that it does not come close to anything that warrants removal.

I'll move on, and wish the both of you enjoyable movies to come.
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
For the third time, tone is projected on to writing. You hear it as "angry." That's one possible interpretation.

It is disturbing to me that a person affecting which reviews are deleted has consistently demonstrated such insular views. Like that he gets to decided what tone is THE tone of a writer rather than realizing that there is more than one truth to how to interpret writing.

And further, that a person challenging the idea that there is only on "truth" needs to examine their soul? So, you've now added gaslighting to your list of derailing strategies because someone correctly called you out on the bias of characterizing a female writer as "whiney."

I don't interact with people who gaslight rather than debating ideas, so I will not be responding further. :)

That's called "healthy boundaries."

Also because I believe Ed has sufficiently proven my point for the need to more closely monitor the ideas, attitudes and behaviors of those making decisions about reviews. 
Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
"tar and feather" is idiomatic. Not literal.
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12261 Posts
  • 13935 Reply Likes
Aye Carumba
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12261 Posts
  • 13935 Reply Likes
298 out of 522? Seriously!
You made it sound like you had overwhelming up-votes.
43% of the viewers find your review not good.

Photo of Amy Luna

Amy Luna

  • 21 Posts
  • 14 Reply Likes
For those reading this thread, I'd like to summarize some troubling phenomenon illustrated repeatedly here:

1) The tendency to project onto women's voices the characterizations of "whiney" "angry" and "excessive" etc. rather than "strong" "righteous" and "persistent" for example.

2) The tendency to believe there is only one truth to how to interpret writing---your truth. In other words, not being hip to the fact that everyone brings their own bias to how they perceive the world.

3) The tendency to take criticism personally and respond by attacking the person making the criticism, instead of addressing the content of their argument.

4) The tendency to try to score points by putting words in the person's mouth whom you disagree with such as "you made it sound like." Which is a form of gaslighting. What I said was 1) I have the second most upvotes of any reviews (I do) and 2) hundreds of people both liked and didn't like my review (which is also factually true). You can't "make" facts "sound" like anything. The listener projects onto the facts what they "sound like." I could add, too, that my review is currently ranked 13th in "helpful" out of over 700 user reviews. :)

5) The tendency to avoid talking about the subject and bringing up a bunch of other stuff to deflect attention from the fact that the person you are debating with is making good points that you are not addressing.

6) How women who stand up for themselves, have a strong voice, don't back down to bullying and gaslighting and hold their frame are told they need to examine their souls.

Hmmmmm...

Have a great day everyone and Thanks again IMDb for reinstating my review! I have faith in you again!. :D!



(Edited)
Photo of Ed Jones (XLIX)

Ed Jones (XLIX)

  • 12261 Posts
  • 13935 Reply Likes
43% and #1 Not Helpful
Truth
Fact
Your words have taken up the majority in this post.
Truth
Fact
You have made my nothing personal statement, "Personal".
Truth
Fact
Reply all you like as I am,
Done!
Bye
Cheers