|
tekz posted:The movie presents a dystopian future where this happens, but doesn't really hold it up to ridicule or cast any kind of judgement (irony??) at all really. It's a bland shoot em up action movie, satire is actually supposed to be funny Maybe you're just drab and boring.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:Maybe you're just drab and boring. That's not really a counterpoint. Cream_Filling posted:Yeah, the satire is that the justice system is based on the principle that it's more important to horribly punish criminals than it is to actually serve the public interest or protect the citizens. And this isn't satire so much as it is a premise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Well the original premise was a satire of the justice system, at least in the comics. I don't know what kind of humor you call judge dredd. Tongue in Cheek?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
tekz posted:The movie presents a dystopian future where this happens, but doesn't really hold it up to ridicule or cast any kind of judgement (irony??) at all really. It's a bland shoot em up action movie, satire is actually supposed to be funny The scene of Dredd igniting a bunch of goons on fire is shot heroically, him triumphing over his enemies. It then switches to an extended view of him watching them burn. His transition from observing the event to being captivated by their torment is an ironic judgment of him. Notably, no part of his plan required him to ambush these guys, he's on a different level from them and he just leaves afterwards. He sets up a situation in which they will attempt to kill a judge in order to have the opportunity to murder them in the name of the law. Satire doesn't have to be funny, making a point through a ridiculous exaggeration is sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
tekz posted:The movie presents a dystopian future where this happens, but doesn't really hold it up to ridicule or cast any kind of judgement (irony??) at all really. It's a bland shoot em up action movie, satire is actually supposed to be funny Please go and read America and tell me satire always has to be funny or hold the target up to ridicule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Please go and read America and tell me satire always has to be funny or hold the target up to ridicule. I've read 'America', and there is nothing remotely on that level in 'Dredd'. It's like the film-makers know they should paint Dredd as an fascist monster, but then they hold back on this with an eye to attracting a mainstream audience. They've singularly failed to attract this audience, and by sucking pretty much all the satire out of the premise have created a film where we have a violent authoritarian policeman hero played essentially straight. I mean, yeah it's a fun film to watch, but morally it's in some loving murky water. Necrothatcher fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Oct 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
tekz posted:The movie presents a dystopian future where this happens, but doesn't really hold it up to ridicule or cast any kind of judgement (irony??) at all really. It's a bland shoot em up action movie, satire is actually supposed to be funny The very nature of the future being dystopian necessitates some kind of judgement because that judgement is used to identify the future as dystopian. Here the nature of the dystopia is not just that of Megacity One being an overindustrialized, overmechanized slum but also that its order (which includes mass poverty) is enforced, irregularly, by a militarized police force with little-to-no democratic oversight. The film will go on to give us more reasons to identify against the judges (equating them with the gang and so on) but it's important to identify at the start that the very fact that the movie is dystopian almost necessitates that it is a satire of some sort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
tekz posted:The movie presents a dystopian future where this happens, but doesn't really hold it up to ridicule or cast any kind of judgement (irony??) at all really. It's a bland shoot em up action movie, satire is actually supposed to be funny Actually the system does have judgment cast on it. When Anderson reads the mind of the tekkie guy and sees everything he's been through she decides the just thing to do is let him go. Without her psychic abilities Dredd would have upheld the status quo and executed a "victim."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I've read 'America', and there is nothing remotely on that level in 'Dredd'. It's like the film-makers know they should paint Dredd as an fascist monster, but then they hold back on this with an eye to attracting a mainstream audience. No, it's more that Dredd is a monster but you don't notice because he's the hero. He burns people alive, blows them up with explosives and kills Ma-Ma exactly the same way she killed the dealers, but it's all OK because he's the good guy and he's upholding the Law. Never mind that it's a Law that allows him to perform on-the-spot executions with no oversight, exiles genetically damaged people into a post-atomic wasteland and has jail sentences for homelessness. That is the satire in Dredd, and it does not have to be overt. The more you think it's a fun film to watch, the better the satire is working.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:And this isn't satire so much as it is a premise. It's a satirical premise. It's expressed in an extreme way that satirizes that premise by showing its consequences with extreme violence. He cares more about revenge and punishment than protecting the citizens of the city, to the point where he's willing to open fire with machine guns on a crowded highway or risk blowing up a building to do it. He summarily executes people, often without knowing much more than "he attacked a Judge." And that scene where he burns a couple guys to death and just sits there looking at it. How is that not a satire of the "tough on crime" viewpoint? The Judge Dredd IP has always played things fairly straight as far as the main character goes. That's kind of the essence of the series - faceless, violent authoritarian policeman hero scowls at people, then shoots them. I'm not sure what more you're looking for here. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
I get the complaint that there wasn't enough satire and past the premise the film seemed to play it straight, but I don't agree that it endorses Judge Dredd's methods. In fact, based on my limited knowledge of the Judge Dredd canon, it kind of works perfectly. At first you think, "Yeah! Go Dredd! Yeah Judge Dredd!" and then Anderson kind of shows you that what you've been cheering for is hosed up - such as her regretting killing that woman's husband - something you'd never see in a film played straight, and in fact, her entire character arc, which is the realization that although it may be effective, this is not the way the law should be applied. And I think that's all you can ask for without the film becoming comedy. I think it's pitching it the perfect amount between being a bad-rear end action film and acknowledging that it's incredibly fascist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
DetoxP posted:At first you think, "Yeah! Go Dredd! Yeah Judge Dredd!" I actually don't think that we're ever invited to side with Dredd. Consider his first confrontation, with the junkie holding a hostage: Dredd offers the junkie the choice between coming in for an isolated-confinement prison sentence and being killed on the spot. The junkie rightly identifies this is a bullshit choice, and challenges Dredd that he has nothing to lose either way. Dredd responds by killing the junkie in an excessively cruel and torturous manner. This is how we are introduced to Dredd, by him articulating the legitimacy of his authority through cruelty and terror. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 01:28 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Is a movie still good if everything that makes it good exists solely to trick me into rooting for a super-violent representative of a hosed-up fascistic system? I feel like that's not how satire should work. Because either you hate the movie or are part of the problem it's satirizing. Or am I wrong? Jeez, I'm confused. I guess I should watch this again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:24
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:It's a satirical premise. It's expressed in an extreme way that satirizes that premise by showing its consequences with extreme violence. I've always seen it as just a British sensibility to make satire (or humor) subtle and dry. Political commentary in American films usually goes way too far out of its way to hit you over the head with it (see "Thank You for Smoking"). I think that style treats its audiences like idiots, so that's why I liked how Dredd presented a ridiculous premise without requiring some monologue to explain "wow imprisoning that homeless guy is ridiculous" and "Dredd just killed a shitload of people and nobody even shrugged". In a typical heavy-handed American film they'd have some background character saying something to explain it to the "poor dumb audience", or at least spend time expanding on it unnecessarily. Also, I found the film to be the most depressingly realistic depiction of the future ever - apart from Anderson's abilities and the amount of ammo a Judge's lawbringer has, everything else seemed totally plausible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I actually don't think that we're ever invited to side with Dredd. Consider his first confrontation, with the junkie holding a hostage: Dredd offers the junkie the choice of coming in for an isolated-confinement prison sentence and being killed on the spot. The junkie rightly identifies this is a bullshit choice, and challenges Dredd that he has nothing to lose either way. Dredd responds by killing the junkie in an excessively cruel and torturous manner. This is how we are introduced to Dredd, by him articulating the legitimacy of his authority through cruelty and terror. And right after that the hostage is in a stunned silence for a moment before saying "Thank you Judge". It seemed to me like she said it more out of fear of Dredd than feeling releived. Martin Van Buren posted:Is a movie still good if everything that makes it good exists solely to trick me into rooting for a super-violent representative of a hosed-up fascistic system? I feel like that's not how satire should work. Because either you hate the movie or are part of the problem it's satirizing. Or am I wrong? Jeez, I'm confused. I don't think recognizing the satire means you have to hate the film because you are against the thing it is satirizing. I think Dredd is a great film and at the same time I realize that Dredd himself is a pretty monstrous character.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I actually don't think that we're ever invited to side with Dredd. Consider his first confrontation, with the junkie holding a hostage: Dredd offers the junkie the choice between coming in for an isolated-confinement prison sentence and being killed on the spot. The junkie rightly identifies this is a bullshit choice, and challenges Dredd that he has nothing to lose either way. Dredd responds by killing the junkie in an excessively cruel and torturous manner. This is how we are introduced to Dredd, by him articulating the legitimacy of his authority through cruelty and terror. Even before that we immediately side with Dredd due to context - which is something that may not be effective if you're already familiar with the character - because Dredd is a big bad-rear end looking guy, and he's the titular star of an action movie about killing criminals. That already sets us up to root for him. In fact I'd say it's that point you're talking about where some start thinking - "ehhhhh" - and if you don't think it then it doesn't take too long after.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Between the drone at the beginning, pictures of random violence in the street and people who could possibly be violent thugs or could possibly be innocent civilians just eking out a living, as well as the aftermath of the mini-guns leaving piles of bodies in the ruined hallways reminded me of the carnage in Iraq and America's role as World Police. Where the poor, desperate and uneducated are funneled into a life of crime and manipulated by a sadist to be cut down before an unfeeling tank of a man who casually destroys them with dominating and superior firepower. For me the film was an effective satire of every other violent action movie, from Commando to The Expendables 2; every movie that expects you to cheer when the bad guy gets killed in a gory fashion. This movie takes the time to show the fear and uncertainty in the bad guys' eyes before showing these same faces dead on the floor not minutes later, and then contrasts with Dredd's unsympathetic, non-conflicted stoicism. It lingers just long enough to take away the initial thrill of the kill (case in point: Ma-ma's death lasted long enough for me to reconsider even wanting to see it before it even 'began' and then it didn't stop until the entire theatre screen was red from corner to corner in blood. Horrifying.) To me this film was anti-violence in its violence, like a father who catches his son smoking and forces him to smoke a whole carton, except instead of cigarettes it's faces exploding/melting/being smashed. Like Inglorious Bastards was with the audience being compared to a bunch of chortling Nazis enjoying their own cinematic revenge fantasy, we the audience are criticized for enjoying violence too much. Dredd is this decade's Starship Troopers, and I would have expected it to be misinterpreted as much if it didn't do so poorly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
Goreld posted:I've always seen it as just a British sensibility to make satire (or humor) subtle and dry. 2000AD, and Judge Dredd in particular isn't subtle and dry at all. Deadpan perhaps, but not really subtle. That's why some of this justification annoys me. Stuff like: quote:"The scene of Dredd igniting a bunch of goons on fire is shot heroically, him triumphing over his enemies. It then switches to an extended view of him watching them burn. His transition from observing the event to being captivated by their torment is an ironic judgment of him. This film totally pussyfoots around the central idea of the comic it's based on, and if very vague interpretations like that one above are the best examples of the film's satire then it's failed. Unless you're a complete nutter it should be basically impossible to come out of a Judge Dredd film thinking "yeah, that Judge Dredd is a pretty cool dude." This film paints him as the badass, onelinering action hero, someone vaguely relatable and worst of all - human. That's why he should have shot those kids. There is no moment where he loses audience sympathy. Giving Dredd a scene where he choose to apply the law leniently completely misses the point of the character. The film's trying to have its cake and eat it. Necrothatcher fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 08:00
|
|
|
So you think it was too subtle because the comics weren't subtle? And how is what you quoted a vague interpretation? Seems pretty clear to me. The satirical nature of Dredd is just as clear as the the satire of Robocop or Starship Troopers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Giving Dredd a scene where he choose to apply the law leniently completely misses the point of the character. Well, in that case John Wagner has been missing the point of the character for 35 years. Having scenes where Dredd applies the Law leniently shows that he has free will. Then, when he does things like shoot the junkie in the mouth with an incendiary round, you know it is not him doing what the Law says he must - it is his choice to kill the man that way, and the system excuses his cruelty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 08:29
|
|
|
Jedit posted:No, it's more that Dredd is a monster but you don't notice because he's the hero. He burns people alive, blows them up with explosives and kills Ma-Ma exactly the same way she killed the dealers, but it's all OK because he's the good guy and he's upholding the Law. Never mind that it's a Law that allows him to perform on-the-spot executions with no oversight, exiles genetically damaged people into a post-atomic wasteland and has jail sentences for homelessness. That is the satire in Dredd, and it does not have to be overt. The more you think it's a fun film to watch, the better the satire is working. Thinking about it, 2000AD (and Starlord, by extension) didn't have many major "outsider" heroes until Nemesis came along - they tended to be part of some larger, officially-sanctioned organisation, like the Search/Destroy Agency, Trans-Time, Ro-Busters, various future sport teams and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 08:36
|
|
|
Kramjacks posted:So you think it was too subtle because the comics weren't subtle? And how is what you quoted a vague interpretation? Seems pretty clear to me. It's vague because saying someone with a helmet covering much of their face is "captivated by their torment" is subjective projection. I'm not going to argue that Dredd is dissimilar to Robocop or Starship Troopers, it's clearly in roughly the same vein. But while those two are blatantly satire, Dredd isn't. Perhaps its due to budget or narrative constraints, or maybe a desire to make the film as accessible to a mainstream audience as possible, but every time the film has the opportunity to actually be overtly satirical it decides to take the safer route. For a film about a cartoon fascist that looks like an erect cock it goes to some pretty unambiguous lengths to make him relatable and heroic. 'Dredd' is the equivalent of making a film about Viz's 'Sid the Sexist', and guffawing all the way through about how hilarious sexist jokes are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
I don't think the satire is being very subtle when he chucks the guy off the balcony and walks back into the smoke like Jason Voorhees, or when his zoomed in face marches by an American flag and than he just starts beating the poo poo out of a guy to get information out of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 11:29
|
|
|
Zyklon B Zombie posted:I don't think the satire is being very subtle when he chucks the guy off the balcony and walks back into the smoke like Jason Voorhees, or when his zoomed in face marches by an American flag and than he just starts beating the poo poo out of a guy to get information out of him. Well this sort of thing happens in '24' and audiences accept it as a heroic action. The best defence of the film I've heard is that the film never actually portrays its world as existing under a heavily authoritarian fascism government. The majority of the audience will be unfamiliar with the comic, and if you watch the film in 'ignorance' (for want of a better word) then you just get the story of a hardline authoritarian cop in a dirty world which justifies OTT actions. This isn't really so far from the classic Dirty Harry anti-hero mould, it's only when you've got prior knowledge of the comic and know the details of the world that the film becomes a bit more problematic in its politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
DetoxP posted:Even before that we immediately side with Dredd due to context - which is something that may not be effective if you're already familiar with the character - because Dredd is a big bad-rear end looking guy, and he's the titular star of an action movie about killing criminals. That already sets us up to root for him. In fact I'd say it's that point you're talking about where some start thinking - "ehhhhh" - and if you don't think it then it doesn't take too long after. I meant to morally side with him, sorry if that wasn't enough clear. He is the titular character, but he is also introduced as a lawman in service of the dystopia. Already we have our first elements of the satire: our 'action hero' is defending a system that is shown to be horrific from frame one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:I meant to morally side with him, sorry if that wasn't enough clear. He is the titular character, but he is also introduced as a lawman in service of the dystopia. Already we have our first elements of the satire: our 'action hero' is defending a system that is shown to be horrific from frame one. How, precisely, is the system shown to be horrific from frame one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 12:31
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:How, precisely, is the system shown to be horrific from frame one? The first shot is the decaying, industrial outskirts of a walled city. The camera then continues through the city, all as broken down as the walled border, until it starts passing the megalithic housing blocks. We're then treated to shots of economic destitution and roving gangs. The film is relying on the audience to have already made some moral judgements, all satire does this to an extent, but I think that the imagery (and, to a lesser degree, expository dialogue) makes understanding Megacity One as dystopian about as simple as can be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Thinking about it, 2000AD (and Starlord, by extension) didn't have many major "outsider" heroes until Nemesis came along - they tended to be part of some larger, officially-sanctioned organisation, like the Search/Destroy Agency, Trans-Time, Ro-Busters, various future sport teams and so on. A lot of the heroes are outsiders within the system, though. Everyone hates Strontium Dogs because they're mutants, everyone hates Blackhawk because, well, he's black. You also forgot characters like MACH Zero, Bill Savage and Nick Stone (of Meltdown Man). It was more common than you think to have the hero not be The Man.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:The first shot is the decaying, industrial outskirts of a walled city. The camera then continues through the city, all as broken down as the walled border, until it starts passing the megalithic housing blocks. We're then treated to shots of economic destitution and roving gangs. The film is relying on the audience to have already made some moral judgements, all satire does this to an extent, but I think that the imagery (and, to a lesser degree, expository dialogue) makes understanding Megacity One as dystopian about as simple as can be. I agree that it does an excellent job of quickly portraying the city as a very unpleasant place, but there's an important distinction between that and the 'judge' system. The fact that the city is shown to be so destitute and decayed only gives the later actions of Dredd a sense of validity; the film portrays Dredd as the required solution to these problems rather than an essential part of why the place is so miserable to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 13:24
|
|
|
Saw the movie last night, I enjoyed it. Also one of the few movies where I felt like 3D added to the experience. Count me in amongst the people who want to read the comics now, the character & world interest me. Just curious, is it a rule that people have to use spoiler tags in a thread when the movie has been out for a little while already? I don't frequent the movie subforum often, but it seems silly to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:00
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I agree that it does an excellent job of quickly portraying the city as a very unpleasant place, but there's an important distinction between that and the 'judge' system. The fact that the city is shown to be so destitute and decayed only gives the later actions of Dredd a sense of validity; the film portrays Dredd as the required solution to these problems rather than an essential part of why the place is so miserable to begin with. Dredd, the character, presents the judge system as valid but I do not think that the film does. They are (albeit ineffectually) attempting to uphold order, but the order that they are attempting to uphold is unjust. This returns to what I said earlier about satire requiring certain moral judgements: It is rather central to the film that the viewer identify the state of affairs as unjust. The film emphasizes this as it presents the idea that this is an average day from Dredd's perspective, and pays off with the joke where the end of Dredd's character arc is that he ostensibly becomes a more fair upholder of a still-perverse system. Another way in which the film emphasizes the injustice of the system is in how it equates Dredd with Ma-Ma and the judges with the gang. Not only do they undertake similar actions, culminating in Dredd killing Ma-Ma the same way that she killed the dealers, but the film also equates the two surveillance systems as it integrates them into the narrative. The upshot of this is that if Dredd is equivalent to Ma-Ma, then he is just as much of a problem as she is: his authority is as valid as hers is. The judges, just like the gang, only rule in-so-far as they are able to directly exercise power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:11
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Saw the movie last night, I enjoyed it. Also one of the few movies where I felt like 3D added to the experience. Count me in amongst the people who want to read the comics now, the character & world interest me. As I understand it, this movie hasn't even been released in some places, so spoiler tags are definitely still in effect. They come off on a kind of case-by-case basis, depending on whether the movie suffers from being spoiled. So any hypothetical thread on early Shyamalan would keep them on basically forever, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:Another way in which the film emphasizes the injustice of the system is in how it equates Dredd with Ma-Ma and the judges with the gang. Not only do they undertake similar actions, culminating in Dredd killing Ma-Ma the same way that she killed the dealers, but the film also equates the two surveillance systems as it integrates them into the narrative. The upshot of this is that if Dredd is equivalent to Ma-Ma, then he is just as much of a problem as she is: his authority is as valid as hers is. The judges, just like the gang, only rule in-so-far as they are able to directly exercise power. That's an excellent interpretation, and one that I'm totally on board with. However, why is this all so drat subtle in the film? A successful Judge Dredd adaptation film should leave even the most boneheaded audience member in no doubt that Dredd's methods and the system he represents is evil, authoritarian and fascist. It's absolutely correct that Dredd is ultimately no better than Ma-Ma, but it's pretty wimpy for the film to just imply it rather than explicitly spell it out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:That's an excellent interpretation, and one that I'm totally on board with. However, why is this all so drat subtle in the film? A successful Judge Dredd adaptation film should leave even the most boneheaded audience member in no doubt that Dredd's methods and the system he represents is evil, authoritarian and fascist. It's absolutely correct that Dredd is ultimately no better than Ma-Ma, but it's pretty wimpy for the film to just imply it rather than explicitly spell it out. Even in the comics Dredd isn't an absolutely evil figure, and there are plenty of issues where he's the straight-up protagonist. He's actually a driving force behind most of the positive social changes that occur, like the acceptance of mutants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Even in the comics Dredd isn't an absolutely evil figure, and there are plenty of issues where he's the straight-up protagonist. He's actually a driving force behind most of the positive social changes that occur, like the acceptance of mutants. Yeah, and that does kind of bother me really. I think the character works better as a symbol of the attractive qualities of fascism rather than as a character with an ongoing narrative. I like my Dredd to be bombing East-Meg One and shooting pro-democracy protesters rather than leading civil rights marches. (although that did arise fairly organically)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Well this sort of thing happens in '24' and audiences accept it as a heroic action. I don't know, I think to shove down the audience's collective throat how unjust and monstrous the Judge system is in the first few frames would weaken the satire and estrange Dredd's image from those of mainstream action lawmen like Dirty Harry, whom I think compose a large part of the film's target of satire. Anyway, I think an audience member with no Dredd experience gets tons of exposure to the inhumanity of the Judge system. Simply the fact that the film's heroes execute incapacitated criminals on the spot and pursue their mark without regard for its effects on innocent life, as demonstrated by the picture in the woman's apartment and ["Perp killed an innocent, I'm taking him in. [opens minigun fire on a congested freeway]", give you all you need to realize that this is a hosed-up system we're dealing with here, that exists not to protect its citizens but to eradicate undesirables. To devote any more time to establishing that without serving the plot would be a waste of a limited budget and if anything prevent the audience from viewing their own law system in a similar vein, which is also the point, I think. Carly Gay Dead Son fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Yeah, and that does kind of bother me really. I think the character works better as a symbol of the attractive qualities of fascism rather than as a character with an ongoing narrative. I like my Dredd to be bombing East-Meg One and shooting pro-democracy protesters rather than leading civil rights marches. (although that did arise fairly organically) You can't have a character stay engaging for 30 years without at least a bit of nuance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:That's an excellent interpretation, and one that I'm totally on board with. However, why is this all so drat subtle in the film? A successful Judge Dredd adaptation film should leave even the most boneheaded audience member in no doubt that Dredd's methods and the system he represents is evil, authoritarian and fascist. It's absolutely correct that Dredd is ultimately no better than Ma-Ma, but it's pretty wimpy for the film to just imply it rather than explicitly spell it out. Dredd's still a human being and the effectiveness of the film would be completely lost if he was just motivated by sadism. You need to see that it would be possible to embody an obviously heinous system for fairly human reasons. There are still things he believes in, and he still believes himself to be good, which is what makes the whole thing so disturbing. Just like real life! That he's principled enough not to take a bribe but will still torture is what makes this a strong movie. If he weren't human or displayed no admirable traits it would be completely pointless and meaningless. Also - did ma ma take out that dude's eyes and replace them with mechanical ones? No Wave fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Also - did ma ma take out that dude's eyes and replace them with mechanical ones? Yep. You see it happen when Anderson reads his mind. Thematically, it might as well have been a castration. Mechafunkzilla fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 11:01 |
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:it's pretty wimpy for the film to just imply it rather than explicitly spell it out. I don't think that the film's satire was that obscure. It demands a level of critical reflection, but so does all worthwhile satire. If a piece of satire is going to fairly attack a person or institution then it has to provide enough detail that the person or institution can be fairly identified and in doing this it will always run the risk of being 'read straight.' Dredd, the film, is not satisfied with simply mocking authoritarians. Instead, it's striving for a couple of deeper points about detaching the outcomes of justice (Dredd's judgement) from the fair processes of justice, and the role of law enforcement in an unjust society. This requires a sufficiently earnest protagonist, as the point isn't that Dredd, the character, is failing to uphold a good ideal but that the ideal itself is the problem. No Wave posted:Also - did ma ma take out that dude's eyes and replace them with mechanical ones? It is strongly implied that this is the case. Mechafunkzilla posted:Yep. You see it happen when Anderson reads his mind. Thematically, it might as well have been a castration. Hand Knit fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Oct 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 15:45
|
|