Watch, Watched, Watching: It's Award Season

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

 

On 300, I just kinda watched it about a month ago simply cuz it came on the TV while I was busy on my laptop.  I suppose this is something for the incels, but all I see is a dumb fun movie trying to entertain people.  What individuals take from things should not be attributed to its creators.

Frank Miller wrote 300, and he absolutely meant it to show how Real Men of Sparta behave and how their ideals were the best ones. If anything the movie played a lot of these parts down from the book. But most of it is meant to be exactly what it looks like - the weird perverse hordes of dark skinned people dying at the hands of the oddly white, naked buff Greeks because democracy is awesome and stuff despite Sparta not being one and mostly being a slave state.

[polishgenius]

 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Fuck that and fuck them, but the distinction between "political" and "sociological" is pretty key.

 

This is fair I suppose, but my original point isn't really distinguishing between what a bad message is- just that some movies have them. 

 

Also I doubt that Zemeckis and the gang really meant for Forrest Gump to come out the way it did - I think it came largely from trying to make it a more likeable story than the book- but while you can't account for viewers/readers etc just baldly misinterpreting a definite point you're making- say, the Rorschach fandom- I do think writers etc have a responsibility over messages in their films even if they didn't set out to write them. But even if one disagrees with that, the questionable aspects are still there. 

 

3 hours ago, Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II said:

To be fair his ‘love interest’ uses him the entire movie (taking advantage of his mental deficiency as he can’t understand hes being used), while she’s with other guys who treat her like garbage, and then finally decides to marry him only when it’s confirmed that she’s gonna die of a terminal disease in like a month so she can once again have him nurse her till the end, so not much sympathies there bro….

 

 

I don't think this really helps as a defense of the movie's moral positioning to be honest. 

[TheLastWolf]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

You forgot the ships!  

You know me -- blood and thunder history, intrique, betrayal, gods and goddesses, heroes and heroines, good army stuff.  Or the occasional cops/corrupt politicians/etc. -- but no no no! romance, love, etc.  Nonono!  

Right now I have no time for exploration again -- no watching time at all in about three weeks, none, none, none.  No reading time either.  Not until late March.

Actually, what I meant about not watching Indian film, is I meant the Hindi stuff.

Pardons for my oversights 

You might like Malaikottai Vaaliban (Malayalam), the latest from Lijo Jose Pellissery whose Jallikattu (2019) was the official Indian Oscar entry that year.

I won't try explaining what it's about, the gorgeous trailers give nothing away either. But it's right up your alley.

Kurosawa and Leone meet big time Lynchian mindfuck

Polarized reviews but I voutch. 

And whenever you're free, March or thereon, ask away!

Edited January 29 by TheLastWolf

[Which Tyler]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Frank Miller wrote 300, and he absolutely meant it to show how Real Men of Sparta behave and how their ideals were the best ones. If anything the movie played a lot of these parts down from the book. But most of it is meant to be exactly what it looks like - the weird perverse hordes of dark skinned people dying at the hands of the oddly white, naked buff Greeks because democracy is awesome and stuff despite Sparta not being one and mostly being a slave state.

Mostly?

[Veltigar]

16 hours ago, Zorral said:

Actually, no I don't.

No this wasn't trolling on my part, but I did have suspicions it was on yours. 

Myself, just don't get how people can love something when it is advocating hate and horror, unless, of course nazis and WWII.

 

Enjoying a problematic piece of entertainment is not the same as loving said piece of entertainment, but here we go with yet another misrepresentation. A rather crucial one at that.

If you wish to understand why certain people follow ideologies you do not condone on an intellectual level, it doesn't hurt looking at the propaganda that influenced them to break that way. Every propagandic piece of entertainment is build out of two layers, an intellectual and emotional one (roughly content and form). The target audience is usually unable to separate the two, gets overwhelmed by the emotions in a film and then soaks in the harmful intellectual arguments. 

Since the form of the message is what opens up the audience, it's good to understand what about the form appeals to people. If you find the ideological content abhorrent, than understanding the form helps you firstly, to design better counter arguments if you seek to do so, and secondly allows you to understand the level of danger.

To use Fighter to illustrate the latter point, by Indian standards, this is a pretty expensive film, it is also competently made and released on a lot of screens (even outside of India). The fact that it carries such a scary message is a lot more concerning than coming across a shitty meme on social media that evokes the same message. The shitty meme might have been generated by a lone looney in their basement, but a film like Fighter is a gargantuan task, which could only be pulled off with assistance from the Indian Ministry of Defence and their Air Force. That's a pretty clear sign that we should be actively worried about the state India is in right now.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

First, have to say I reject this premise that any film is made based on political ideology.  I don't know too many people in the industry, but those that I do I guarantee you do not give a shit about ideology when they're writing. 

Hmm, I get what you are saying, and I think you are right up to point. We shouldn't be surprised that the dominant sociological perspective is represented in a lot of films. It is an expensive, collective art form after all, so in a market-driven system like the U.S. naturally that's where the resources are.

That being said, even in the American system (let alone the old Soviet or contemporary Chinese/Indian/etc. cinemas) a long tradition of blatantly ideological film making does exist. There are many reasons for that, but one obvious one, illustrated by both Fighter and Top Gun films, is the fact that the state has more money to blow than any other entity out there, and film makers tend to drift towards whatever can give them the resources necessary to create a successful film.

There has been a lot of reporting over the last two years about the cosy relationship between the Department of Defence and Hollywood for instance:

Quote

Oscar winner Top Gun: Maverick and the relationship between US military and Hollywood - Vox

 

[IlyaP]

46 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

That being said, even in the American system (let alone the old Soviet or contemporary Chinese/Indian/etc. cinemas) a long tradition of blatantly ideological film making does exist. There are many reasons for that, but one obvious one, illustrated by both Fighter and Top Gun films, is the fact that the state has more money to blow than any other entity out there, and film makers tend to drift towards whatever can give them the resources necessary to create a successful film.

See also nearly every James Bond movie ever. Except maybe Octopussy, which is like the It of spy movies. But very, very drunk.

[Isis]

Went to see Poor Things last night. I thought it was fabulous and hilarious. Loved the cinematography, the costumes, the sound. Mark Ruffalo must have had a great time hamming it up so much. 

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Frank Miller wrote 300, and he absolutely meant it to show how Real Men of Sparta behave and how their ideals were the best ones. If anything the movie played a lot of these parts down from the book. But most of it is meant to be exactly what it looks like - the weird perverse hordes of dark skinned people dying at the hands of the oddly white, naked buff Greeks because democracy is awesome and stuff despite Sparta not being one and mostly being a slave state.

Sure, those critiques on 300 are totally fair and rather obvious.  What I was trying to get at is the critique that it's some type of "neocon" movie regarding a specific political agenda -- especially at the time period it was produced.  It may reflect that in terms of the studios being gung-ho about it due to the political climate, but that doesn't in any way mean Miller nor Zach Snyder were trying to endorse Dubya, Wolfowitz, etc. by making the movie.

6 hours ago, polishgenius said:

Also I doubt that Zemeckis and the gang really meant for Forrest Gump to come out the way it did - I think it came largely from trying to make it a more likeable story than the book- but while you can't account for viewers/readers etc just baldly misinterpreting a definite point you're making- say, the Rorschach fandom- I do think writers etc have a responsibility over messages in their films even if they didn't set out to write them. But even if one disagrees with that, the questionable aspects are still there. 

I think this is a better argument to make with 300.  With Gump, I'm not sure what people take and then apply that is a necessarily negative political message.  Just in general, Jenny and AIDS?  That you should break up a Black Panther Party?  They were eliding the depth of cultural touchstones, sure, but I'm hard-pressed to know what damage this did to the American psyche beyond Boomers continuing to think they're way more important than they are.

[Heartofice]

8 hours ago, DMC said:

First, have to say I reject this premise that any film is made based on political ideology.  I don't know too many people in the industry, but those that I do I guarantee you do not give a shit about ideology when they're writing. 

Depends what you mean by political ideology, but I think there are movies that are overtly political and many which just seem to reflect a general way of thinking during a period of time. 
 

Like it’s always interesting to see the way authority figures and government are depicted over time in movies, respected in the 60s to being annoying bad guys by the 80s. The way vigilante action movies of the 80s reflect distrust and anger is also interesting.

But there are really overt political movies, Oliver Stone does it all the time. You also can’t tell me Disney isn’t being really overt in some of its decisions when it comes to its writing and that it doesn’t have a strong ideology underpinning its more recent outings. She-Hulk wears it ideology on its sleeve for instance.

And I was joking earlier about Barbie being abhorrent, but I’m not joking that it’s possibly the most overt ideological  messaging in a mega blockbuster movie ever. It’s barely even a movie, more just a 2 hour feminist essay, a very confused one. 

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Veltigar said:

That being said, even in the American system (let alone the old Soviet or contemporary Chinese/Indian/etc. cinemas) a long tradition of blatantly ideological film making does exist. There are many reasons for that, but one obvious one, illustrated by both Fighter and Top Gun films, is the fact that the state has more money to blow than any other entity out there, and film makers tend to drift towards whatever can give them the resources necessary to create a successful film.

There has been a lot of reporting over the last two years about the cosy relationship between the Department of Defence and Hollywood for instance:

...I can't help but feel like this is a trap to get me to shit on Top Gun again.  But, yes, the relationship between Hollywood and the DoD is nothing new.  Immediately makes me think of John Wayne's The Green Berets, which was essentially bankrolled by the DoD during the Vietnam War. 

THAT's an example of a film with a political agenda.  In one of my undergrad film classes the professor played the entire movie.  It was to point out it was a propaganda film, but I was like "K..so why are you making us watch it."  Didn't make sense to me, so I left.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

But there are really overt political movies, Oliver Stone does it all the time. You also can’t tell me Disney isn’t being really overt in some of its decisions when it comes to its writing and that it doesn’t have a strong ideology underpinning its more recent outings. She-Hulk wears it ideology on its sleeve for instance.

So this is pretty much what I was getting at.  The idea that Disney has a "woke agenda" is entirely farcical.  Disney's, and other studios', choices are based on listening to marketing reps that present them data on how to make the most money.  Even Stone understands the game and tailors (tailored?  Can't think of anything he's done recently) his films in certain ways so as to not upset the status quo too much. 

In regards to Disney, politicizing their output indeed was/is absurdly attempted by DeSantis, and it's a political loser not only because voters don't care, but also because it's ridiculous on its face.  The lobbyists in DC employed by Disney are not there to pursue a "woke ideology."  They're there to ensure the benefits for large corporations in the tax code are preserved.  And to ensure congressional and agency oversight does not perturb how they do business.  Just like any other major corporation.

Barbie and Marvel movies and whatever may upset you, but this is not a political agenda.  It simply reflects the shifting sociological perspective on behalf of its consumers.  That's the cause and effect.

[TheLastWolf]

In regards to the John Wayne and John Ford collab westerns and others too, painting all the Natives as savages and and condoning the manifest destiny idealogy, I know of the social ramifications but anything deeper politically?

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

Barbie and Marvel movies and whatever may upset you, but this is not a political agenda.  It simply reflects the shifting sociological perspective on behalf of its consumers.  That's the cause and effect.

It's hard to watch something like Barbie and suggest it's just a 'shifting sociological perspective on behalf of it's customers', it's far far more than that. For christ's sake the movie features a final act that includes one woman ranting about the difficulties of modern womanhood for seemingly ages, almost to camera. The big bad of the movie is... the patriarchy. It doesn't get any more overt. That's not simply reflecting general sentiment, it's evangelising. 
 

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

The idea that Disney has a "woke agenda" is entirely farcical. 

Well Bob Iger disagrees, and has made it clear that Disney movies objective is not to push a message but to entertain, and that he will stop them doing that and go back to their entertaining roots, in a clear admission that the past few years they creative teams have gotten lost trying to push an ideology into their output.

Edited January 29 by Heartofice

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

It's hard to watch something like Barbie and suggest it's just a 'shifting sociological perspective on behalf of it's customers', it's far far more than that. For christ's sake the movie features a final act that includes one woman ranting about the difficulties of modern womanhood for seemingly ages, almost to camera. The big bad of the movie is... the patriarchy. It doesn't get any more overt. That's not simply reflecting general sentiment, it's evangelising. 

The movie is a satire.  It's a lot less political than you think it is, and - more importantly - doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as you do.

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well Bob Iger disagrees, and has made it clear that Disney movies objective is not to push a message but to entertain, in a clear admission that it's exactly what they have been doing for the past few years. 

....huh?  If his statement is not to push a message but to entertain, what's your problem?  Regardless, I really don't care what Bob iger says in public.

6 minutes ago, TheLastWolf said:

In regards to the John Wayne and John Ford collab westerns and others too, painting all the Natives as savages and and condoning the manifest destiny idealogy, I know of the social ramifications but anything deeper politically?

Yeah, tbc I love John Ford/John Wayne westerns.  And they are entirely "problematic" (I hate that word) from any reasonable perspective.  Especially The Searchers, which is IMHO the greatest western ever.  It's a racist civil war vet on a quest to kill his niece because she was taken and presumably defiled by an indigenous tribe.  Still love the movie though, but context is important.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

The movie is a satire.  It's a lot less political than you think it is, and - more importantly - doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as you do.

I don't take it especially seriously, but it's not a movie about a plastic doll, it's a movie about feminism and gender politics, wrapped up in a pink plasticky box. If you came out of it thinking it was just some light fluffy comedy then I can only guess you fell asleep 5 minutes in. 

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

....huh?  If his statement is not to push a message but to entertain, what's your problem?  Regardless, I really don't care what Bob iger says in public.

The point is even Bob Iger is admitting that's what they've been doing for the past few years. So I'm not sure why you are so adamant they haven't been pushing a woke agenda, when they have admitted to doing it. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I don't take it especially seriously, but it's not a movie about a plastic doll, it's a movie about feminism and gender politics, wrapped up in a pink plasticky box. If you came out of it thinking it was just some light fluffy comedy then I can only guess you fell asleep 5 minutes in. 

It's certainly a comment on feminism.  But, again, that's reflecting a sociological perspective, NOT a political agenda.  Women that tend to vote for rightwing parties can identify with the message just as much as women that tend to vote for leftwing parties.

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

The point is even Bob Iger is admitting that's what they've been doing for the past few years. So I'm not sure why you are so adamant they haven't been pushing a woke agenda, when they have admitted to doing it. 

Again, based on the way you posed the statement, this doesn't make sense.  If what you're referring to is the opposite - that Iger stated the objective was to push a message rather than to just entertain - I still don't care.  Iger's public statements in his role as CEO of Disney are going to be framed by what he wants the public to think.  Which is part and parcel of the point I'm trying to make.

[Heartofice]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

It's certainly a comment on feminism.  But, again, that's reflecting a sociological perspective, NOT a political agenda.  Women that tend to vote for rightwing parties can identify with the message just as much as women that tend to vote for leftwing parties.

My point is the ideological underpinnings are not some subtle elements woven in to the movie, the ideology and social commentary is THE POINT of the movie, which is pretty extraordinary for a mainstream blockbuster. It's also preaching a message to it's audience, and depicting a worldview to kids from a very particular perspective, and being incredibly overt about it.

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, based on the way you posed the statement, this doesn't make sense.  If what you're referring to is the opposite - that Iger stated the objective was to push a message rather than to just entertain - I still don't care.  Iger's public statements in his role as CEO of Disney are going to be framed by what he wants the public to think.  Which is part and parcel of the point I'm trying to make.

I mean you should care because it completely contradicts your statement that "The idea that Disney has a "woke agenda" is entirely farcical", it's not farcical, it's a fact.

Edited January 29 by Heartofice

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

My point is the ideological underpinnings are not some subtle elements woven in to the movie, the ideology and social commentary is THE POINT of the movie, which is pretty extraordinary for a mainstream blockbuster. It's also preaching a message to it's audience, and depicting a worldview to kids from a very particular perspective, and being incredibly overt about it.

It's not ideology.  You are misunderstanding what ideology means.  It entails support for specific policy preferences.  This is why in The American Voter back in 1960, the Michigan researchers observed that voters did not have what they referred to as "ideological constraint." 

What you're so upset about regarding THE POINT of the movie is that women have ways to take on the "patriarchy."  Their ways depicted in the movie are kind of absurd, of course, but if you have a problem with that that's a you problem - NOT a problem of the film itself.

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I mean you should care because it completely contradicts your statement that "The idea that Disney has a "woke agenda" is entirely farcical", it's not farcical, it's a fact.

No, it really doesn't.  First, I haven't actually seen this quote, just what you've said about it.  Second, Disney or any corporations' public statements are for their stockholders, not me nor you.  This should be patently obvious in terms of how MNCs do business.

[Jace, Extat]

I just didn't think it was very funny or creative 

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

It's not ideology.

Depends if you want to use some very different definition of an ideology outside of 'a set of opinions and beliefs or philosophies'. Barbie is absolutely projecting it's ideology to the world, much more than it is about a plastic doll. 

1 hour ago, DMC said:

What you're so upset about regarding THE POINT of the movie is that women have ways to take on the "patriarchy." 

Again, the movie is coming to the audience with a set of priors and assumptions about the world that not everyone will agree with and is trying to convince people of it's opinion. b

1 hour ago, DMC said:

No, it really doesn't.  First, I haven't actually seen this quote, just what you've said about it.  Second, Disney or any corporations' public statements are for their stockholders, not me nor you.  This should be patently obvious in terms of how MNCs do business.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/disney-ceo-bob-iger-says-movies-have-been-too-focused-on-messaging.html

 

Quote

Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger said Wednesday he will no longer tolerate his company’s partners and creative team prioritizing messaging over storytelling.

“Creators lost sight of what their No. 1 objective needed to be,” Iger said at the DealBook Summit in New York on Wednesday. “We have to entertain first. It’s not about messages.”

 

Quote

“We have entertained with values and with having a positive impact on the world in many different ways. ‘Black Panther’ is a great example of that,” Iger said. “I like being able to entertain if you can infuse it with positive messages and have a good impact on the world. Fantastic. But that should not be the objective. When I came back, what I have really tried to do is to return to our roots.”

That's a flat out admission that the previous few years have prioritised 'messaging' over entertainment. It's hardly just me and Bob who have noticed it either. It really just seems to be you, on your own, pretending it hasn't been happening.