Movies with messages you disagree with

[Zack83]

Oh, boy. What are we trying to do here? Start fights? Those happen just fine on their own in these threads
That said, I'll indulge:

Juno... fire that one into the sun, please.

[ImBlu_DaBaDee]

The entire James Bond franchise

Every movie starts with him walking into frame and firing his gun directly at me, the viewer. I am always offended by this and expect more from a man in a tuxedo. This sends a horrible message about well-dressed individuals everywhere.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by jmbe

Indeed. Which is why I said "demands civility". I never said anything about fascists being civil. I was describing the state of civility under fascism, which is a different thing. But yes, this comes about through force, so yes, a more accurate term would be "obedience". Semantics aside, I think my post made pretty clear that I understand what you've elaborated on here though.

Anyway, the point still remains that I see nothing in Straw Dogs that makes it "a fascist film". Hoffman's character prevents a mentally handicapped man from being lynched and kills the people who raped his wife. If that makes him a fascist, what does that make the rapists and wood-be lynchers?

Should he have done nothing? Should he have remained "civil"? Would that make him less morally dubious? Is there a way he could have enacted revenge in a non-fascistic way? Is revenge in and of itself fascistic?

(this isn't directed at you by the way, I'm just restating my questions)

Point taken. This conversation definitely makes me want to watch this film. I've only seen Pekinpah's The Wild Bunch which I loved.

I also think the word 'fascist' is used in place of other words that could be used instead... like reactionary, or authoritarian. The F word seems to carry different meanings for different people across different time frames.

This is a valuable and interesting conversation to have.

Thanks for your response. When I watch Straw Dogs I will drop my take on it. Nothing I have read about it so far leads me to think it's anything other than a film about the domination and control of others through the expression of violence and savagery... but I could be wrong.

[jmbe]

Originally Posted by Zack83

Oh, boy. What are we trying to do here? Start fights? Those happen just fine on their own in these threads
That said, I'll indulge:

Juno... fire that one into the sun, please.

No fights here, just robust discussion

At first I was wondering why Juno, but then I quickly refreshed my memory of the plot on Wikipedia and yes, I think I also disagree with the message somewhat. Probably an age thing...

Originally Posted by An4h0ny

Point taken. This conversation definitely makes me want to watch this film. I've only seen Pekinpah's The Wild Bunch which I loved.

I also think the word 'fascist' is used in place of other words that could be used instead... like reactionary, or authoritarian. The F word seems to carry different meanings for different people across different time frames.

This is a valuable and interesting conversation to have.

Thanks for your response. When I watch Straw Dogs I will drop my take on it. Nothing I have read about it so far leads me to think it's anything other than a film about the domination and control of others through the expression of violence and savagery... but I could be wrong.

Right back at you. I appreciate the dialogue. I also need to revisit the film in light of this discussion, even though I wasn't too fussed about it when I saw it many years ago (I was similarly indifferent to The Wild Bunch and so never explored Peckinpah's filmography any further). Apologies if I've spoiled any of it for you!

I suppose ultimately I'm reticent to apply any kind of political verbiage to a film when more psychological(?) terms regarding the human condition would suffice. I find that it's a way of distancing oneself from the truths on show and it comes across as being a bit of a cop-out. If you can say a film is fascist, whilst maintaining that you yourself are not fascist, it's subtly implying that you are impervious to the moral failings of the characters. That you're somehow above it. If you describe a film or character as being sadistic or violent, you have to grapple with the fact that these things lie dormant in all of us, which is far more uncomfortable.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

[BudBaxter]

Originally Posted by ImBlu_DaBaDee

The entire James Bond franchise

Every movie starts with him walking into frame and firing his gun directly at me, the viewer. I am always offended by this and expect more from a man in a tuxedo. This sends a horrible message about well-dressed individuals everywhere.

The British censors agree with you. They made EON change the UK poster for Goldeneye so that Bond wasn't pointing the gun at the audience.

[Halisty]

The Wolf of Wall Street. While entertaining, it glamorizes greed and excess without enough consequence. I get it's satire, but the message felt a bit too celebratory for me.

[An4h0ny]

Originally Posted by jmbe

No fights here, just robust discussion

At first I was wondering why Juno, but then I quickly refreshed my memory of the plot on Wikipedia and yes, I think I also disagree with the message somewhat. Probably an age thing...


Right back at you. I appreciate the dialogue. I also need to revisit the film in light of this discussion, even though I wasn't too fussed about it when I saw it many years ago (I was similarly indifferent to The Wild Bunch and so never explored Peckinpah's filmography any further). Apologies if I've spoiled any of it for you!

I suppose ultimately I'm reticent to apply any kind of political verbiage to a film when more psychological(?) terms regarding the human condition would suffice. I find that it's a way of distancing oneself from the truths on show and it comes across as being a bit of a cop-out. If you can say a film is fascist, whilst maintaining that you yourself are not fascist, it's subtly implying that you are impervious to the moral failings of the characters. That you're somehow above it. If you describe a film or character as being sadistic or violent, you have to grapple with the fact that these things lie dormant in all of us, which is far more uncomfortable.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

I think these are all great and valid points! People can be reactionary to things and sometimes not even understand or take the time to examine where their reaction stems from. I agree that it's extremely important to self-examine and process emotions fully, which as you point out, can be ugly and uncomfortable. Most humans are extremely complex and fraught with conflicting emotional states that overlap and compete for space in the individual psyche. It's easier to externalize the uncomfortable parts and denounce them as a way to temporarily alleviate any psychological discord that might be occurring.

Media outlets drive viewership with strong base emotions like fear and/or outrage which jacks into that negative feedback loop and can intensify it in some. I also mostly reject what I view as a false or amplified political framework that can be hastily erected around certain issues in service of cheerleading for one side or the other. Unfortunately, it's almost never that simple or straightforward. I guess that's why certain harmful ideologies persist throughout history.... and why art exists as well.

Many times a work of art can pierce through that shell of emotional reticence into the deepest heart of an issue, illuminating it in a way that discussion or arguing never could. Art can reveal the beauty AND the terror simultaneously, exposing the writhing complexities of the human soul at war with itself. That's why, to me anyway, it is so important for artists to have freedom to create what their hearts lead them to. When a great artist achieves their goal, it benefits all of mankind.

We all need to watch Straw Dogs and then meet back here to debate it. Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion! Cheers!