|
only annoying character in the movie was Tracy the foreign exchange student. I really could have done without her. Other than that the movie ruled
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
I thought this was a fantastic movie. Absolutely gorgeous from top to bottom. Lovingly made and touching at several points(how could it not be it's got dogs) The mewling liberal boot quaking and per-emptive woke hedging that I've seen from reviewers and people here is really pathetic frankly. The lengths people go to immediately poison the well and render this beautiful thing into utterly useless freshman English lit "critical reading" and everyone has to pretend to take it seriously really bothers me a lot especially considering the most obvious reading of the film is one of embracing the Other Do yourself a favor and just go see it and not check with all the relevant twenty something thinkpiece authorities whether you're allowed to unironically like it. It's great.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
I would say Tracy is definitely a problem character, less for the lowkey "white savior" can of worms, and more because she's just kind of unlikable and distracting in an otherwise pretty well-structured movie. Her character could have easily been absorbed entirely by Yoko, who has far more sympathetic and engaging motives but is just sort of awkwardly shunted aside as a plot device in the third act. Aside from that, it's a hell of a movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:09
|
|
|
Bolek posted:Do yourself a favor and just go see it and not check with all the relevant twenty something thinkpiece authorities whether you're allowed to unironically like it. It's great. Yo aside from the completely avoidable problematic elements, it wasn't even that engaging of a story. I'm no SJW by any stretch, but regardless of any of those aspects of the film, I just completely forgot about it after walking out. There wasn't really anything all that compelling about any of the characters w h a t s o e v e r
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Edit: ignore me, stupidly argumentative
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
Bolek posted:The mewling liberal boot quaking ShoogaSlim posted:I'm no SJW by any stretch lmao aight
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Chief either lies about being an uncontrollable biting dog which is why he has no family OR he loses all credibility by letting Atari immediately start touching and bathing him as soon as they're separated from the rest of the group[/spoilers] (major characters with zero arc, by the way). As soon as that happened, there was no more intrigue for me. Huge missed opportunity to show that even when they're [spoiler]in a desperate situation, he still needs time to overcome his fear and build trust. I really enjoy Wes Anderson and adore his movies. This just doesn't really go anywhere and feels confused the entire time. Stop hinging your retaliations against criticism on the fact that people have problems with the choices made regarding race and whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
The "I'm a vicious biting dog" thing is an act to avoid commitment. He self-sabotaged his one chance at a family because he doesn't believe he's worthy of it. His story arc is growing from a stray with no self-worth, surrounded by many well-loved/exceptional dogs (baseball team mascot, doggy food ad star, etc.), to allowing himself to get close/bond with a human and becoming an important guard dog.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
What bothered me with this one was that Wes tried to tackle the entire country of Japan. Usually his stories get away with things because they're on islands, or boats, or within a single family, or hotel, or small unit of idiosyncratic characters. With Isle of Dogs he literally depicted the whole of Japanese people as meek and helpless and frankly pretty stupid, then had a white savior ram the plot progression along. Sure it was pretty, and an homage to whatever, but all our favorite Wes Anderson tropes just didn't sit right outside of their usual bubble. Plus, his ratio of "pretty scenes" to "a character giving exposition about how the plot is moving" seemed way out of whack. I groaned out loud when Tracy told the audience she's in love with Atari. The icing on the cake was when Tracy slaps around Yoko Ono, who just mopes at a bar so the white savior can save literally the entire population of Japan. Oh, but there was a haiku at the end too, so technically Atari also saved the day. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
It's better if you transfer all of Greta Gerwig's story onto Yoko Ono's. Just imagine her ego/agent didn't insist on being in the movie
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
I can for sure see the argument that Tracy is an unnecessary and pandering character and that the movie would be better without her (or with her character altered). But she is also a secondary character in a movie where there is already a Japanese protagonist and several other secondary and tertiary Japanese characters who accomplish as much or significantly more than her. The idea that she is the singular white savior in a movie full of otherized Japanese villains is laughable unless you're willfully ignoring a bunch of actual poo poo from the movie (or assuming that because you can understand what she is saying that it makes her more of a focal character I guess)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:What bothered me with this one was that Wes tried to tackle the entire country of Japan. Usually his stories get away with things because they're on islands, or boats, or within a single family, or hotel, or small unit of idiosyncratic characters. I don’t know what other “things” you are implying his stories “got away with” but Grand Budapest Hotel was about much more than just a hotel - and he “tackled” much more than a single country, it was inter-war Europe (and beyond to the tinkering in the Middle East) and the linkages to the times before and after. I think you can make similar cases, successful or not, for most of his more recent films. Indeed, Isle of Dogs is about a lot more than Japan, it is clearly representing more than Japanese culture or contemporary Japanese politics. It is grappling with an other to make a broader statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
warez posted:The "I'm a vicious biting dog" thing is an act to avoid commitment. He self-sabotaged his one chance at a family because he doesn't believe he's worthy of it. His story arc is growing from a stray with no self-worth, surrounded by many well-loved/exceptional dogs (baseball team mascot, doggy food ad star, etc.), to allowing himself to get close/bond with a human and becoming an important guard dog. Tell me where this is made clear in the film to prove you're not just inferring whatever you want from the story. Anderson is clearly an expert at handling these kinds of characters but this fell flat entirely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:Tell me where this is made clear in the film to prove you're not just inferring whatever you want from the story. Anderson is clearly an expert at handling these kinds of characters but this fell flat entirely. Why is inferring a bad thing? It's obviously not outright stated but he certainly has a character arc. I would say it's made clear through not only his actions in the story of his adoption but also -- later when he meets his brother Spots -- his stated fear that he was the runt of the litter. It seems a very obvious case of him being abandoned and not knowing why leading to him being afraid he is not worthy of being loved. He is standoffish and wary of all masters but he still ultimately craves their approval. That's his basic A to B arc. You could certainly say it didn't work for you but it shouldn't have been unclear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:Tell me where this is made clear in the film to prove you're not just inferring whatever you want from the story. Anderson is clearly an expert at handling these kinds of characters but this fell flat entirely. Eh, it's fair that I'm probably inferring a little too much re: his experience with the family/"self-sabotage." I saw it last weekend so there's probably relevant stuff I've forgotten that might contradict (you're free to bring it up too). I think the emphasis placed on him being the odd man out in the pack/maybe a loser for being a stray is just so clearly communicated at the beginning that his journey out of that is the clearest arc for his character. Him not really showing any aggression toward/warming up quickly to Atari makes me think that the "I'm a biter" thing might be more of an excuse than the whole truth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:You could certainly say it didn't work for you but it shouldn't have been unclear. warez posted:I think the emphasis placed on him being the odd man out in the pack/maybe a loser for being a stray is just so clearly communicated at the beginning that his journey out of that is the clearest arc for his character. Him not really showing any aggression toward/warming up quickly to Atari makes me think that the "I'm a biter" thing might be more of an excuse than the whole truth. You both bring up fair points. I'm letting my overall disappoint cloud my judgment a bit. Chief definitely has an arc, but it doesn't work for me.
For me, "I'm a biter" was Chief's version of this Anderson trope. If true, that whole notion is dismissed without hesitation shortly after the confession, making the arc less compelling. If false, it adds a layer of nuance to how flawed Chief really is, but then you have more depth that goes completely unexplored, making the arc less compelling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2018 09:27
|
|
|
If you watched this movie and thought of Tracy as some kind of unambiguous white savior, you went into it looking for a character like that to post about on the internet and didn't pay attention to the fact she is constantly cringey in an intentional way.Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like it's a place your little felt models would hang out when they got done hanging out in the retro present midwest south: KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Apr 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:
I mean it is nominally because the book is, but it really really isn't
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
I loved this flick. A good dense comedy with an intriguing story and a unique environment. Plus great voice acting. Regarding the film's treatment of Japan- I dunno, it didn't feel to me like it was just about "What a weird place Japan is am I right". The social forces at work had explanations behind them ("why dogs" is never really explained but it's still a demagogue building support on fear of an outside force), the world felt fully realized, and there were lots of little nods beyond just surface Japanese things. Quite a bit of Kurosawa in there for one. (Also one bit I liked is the robot dogs are clearly little Mechagodzillas.) And yeah Tracy is no White Savior. There's no one savior in the whole thing, it's all about groups and people pulling together.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
I love Wes Anderson but I wish he’d focus on real movies instead of this animated pap.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
sponges posted:I love Wes Anderson but I wish he’d focus on real movies instead of this animated pap. What makes the animated films worse than "real" movies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
quote:For me, "I'm a biter" was Chief's version of this Anderson trope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:But she is also a secondary character in a movie where there is already a Japanese protagonist and several other secondary and tertiary Japanese characters who accomplish as much or significantly more than her. The idea that she is the singular white savior in a movie full of otherized Japanese villains is laughable unless you're willfully ignoring a bunch of actual poo poo from the movie (or assuming that because you can understand what she is saying that it makes her more of a focal character I guess) Right: the argument of Icantfindaname (et al) is that they perceive the Japanese characters as subhuman. But they know they should not do this. Therefore, to reconcile their ‘wokeness’ with their racism, Wes Anderson is to blame for their racism. This is typical of how liberals appropriate the language of progressive struggle (in this case, antiracism) to decidedly opposite ends (in this case, upholding white supremacy and promoting notions of ethno-national purity). The demand for extradiegetic translation of the spoken Japanese into English is accompanied by an equally-strong demand for the elimination of any diegetic mixing of races and cultures. So the apparently mixed-race character who works as an interpreter and the inter-racial teen romance subplot are singled out as examples of the West’s corrupting influence. What this silliness ignores is that subtitles are employed throughout the film, crucially, as labels on products - everything from a box of ramen, to advanced weapons systems, to the film’s own title cards. It also ignores that the original MechaGodzilla, upon which the drones are based, is an alien invader who attacks Japan. The drones, which are also modeled after Boston Dynamics’ BigDog and InGen’s mutant dilophosaur, are then concealed inside what’s patently a Sony AIBO. In this context, the ambiguously-diegetic parenthetical translations represent the universality of capitalism - the ability of capitalism to assimilate any and all cultures. These are products for the global market. The conflict is not at all between ‘East and West’ or ‘Whites and Nonwhites’, but between the apocalyptic acceleration of the villains and the ideologically-limited child activists who ultimately - as the film cheekily points out - stand for a moderate capitalism. The satire (however gentle) is clear in how the alien drones, no longer profitable, are relegated to the scrap heap in one of the final haunting images. It’s Chappie / District 9 imagery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
ShoogaSlim posted:Fantastic Mr Fox - "Because I'm a wild animal" I want to revisit this because I just finished FMr.F on cable and I do think this quote is a pretty good comparison to Chief's because they're both convenient excuses to continue behaving in self-destructive ways without really admitting to yourself or others your true insecurities. Fox's quote is referenced twice and his wife even calls B.S. on it ("you're also a husband and a father") and in their second discussion he has a bit more actual self-reflection with the "wild animal" quote kind of being invoked in a less excuse-y way (his wife is the one who says it in this discussion and IMO its kind of a way of letting him off the hook a bit) Some of the other quotes are interesting but different. I don't feel Royal really reveals any sort of flaw although he does finally say something honest about his feelings for his family (even if by accident). Blume's is closer in that it's also him trying to excuse his behavior, although again it's him accidentally getting something right, because Max's feelings for Rushmore are just as one-sided and sort've toxic SuperMechagodzilla posted:The drones, which are also modeled after Boston Dynamics’ BigDog and InGen’s mutant dilophosaur, are then concealed inside what’s patently a Sony AIBO. I did love the poo poo out of this imagery, and thought it was particularly clever that it was revealed in the reverse way it usually would (instead of the cuddly robo-puppies transforming into battle drones at a dramatic point, the opposite happens and only later are you shown that the government is selling these things as Trojan Horse-esque consumer goods)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
The REAL Goobusters posted:only annoying character in the movie was Tracy the foreign exchange student. I really could have done without her. I get people finding this in some areas weaker than other Wes Anderson but it was just so beautiful and whimsical and fantastical and it's so easy but effective to sentimentally tug ones heart strings with dog stuff. Works for most people and definitely me. I was drinking to be sure but count me as beguiled in a way I wasn't with fantastic mister fox. It was in some ways more shallow than a lot of his films but also just more fun to watch. He did kinda overuse the seven samurai kikuchiyo theme but gently caress it its pretty much the best so you might as well What was funny were the families that had brought kids expecting some basic rear end Pixar poo poo. I heard a kid talking to his mom behind me. "Mom, what happened to (DogName)????" "Uhhh...well...you see...(DogName) is dead..." Not every day Wes Anderson teaches your kids about the grim finality of death
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
i incidentally fully expected both the original dog the main character is searching for and the dogs that get minecarted into the machinery to be all dead, I dunno it just seemed like something Wes Anderson might not be afraid to just hit you with like boom. Ultimately glad no animated dogs were hurt in the making of this film
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 06:20
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Right: the argument of Icantfindaname (et al) is that they perceive the Japanese characters as subhuman. But they know they should not do this. Therefore, to reconcile their ‘wokeness’ with their racism, Wes Anderson is to blame for their racism. Great post. Especially agree about the shifting of the learned hypersensitivity (and, ironically, the resultant othering effect that has) to a different culture being used as a canvas to tell a story, as a projection of a malice and fetishism onto others. Wanting diversity without diversity. You should read that article that was posted earlier in the thread about the lady trying to find token race representatives to affirm her own self imposed squeamishness about the movie and them being like "I dunno, I guess the dialogue was a little muffled?". Its really something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
The american culture war is a cancer. Exhibit A: this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
I liked the movie but I was disappointed that the four dogs who went through the incinerator factory got sidelined hard for the rest of the movie after they went in. I wanted more of their interactions!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Bard Maddox posted:I liked the movie but I was disappointed that the four dogs who went through the incinerator factory got sidelined hard for the rest of the movie after they went in. I wanted more of their interactions! I'm ambivalent about this because I share this feeling but also know how the chances of a movie feeling baggy increase rapidly as it gets longer. If I had to choose to make any sequence longer I'd choose the sushi scene.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
This movie sucked rear end
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 22:02
|
|
|
echronorian posted:This movie sucked rear end If that rear end is filled with delicious milkshake, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
I went with a friend of mine and we both loving loved this. The comic timing of the dog sneezes was perfect every single time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Aside from a really overwrought narrative, it was pretty good. Animation was great, Seven Samurai theme was cute. I feel like if you’re going to enter into Plague Dogs territory you probably shouldn’t keep one foot placed firmly in whimsy. Also, taking a shot whenever a character looks on with teary puppet-gel eyes would be a dangerous drinking game. And this was probably Harvey Keitel’s lowest point for his career. I would give a few dollars to watch him deliver those lines in a soundstage. curlys gold fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
curlys gold posted:Also, taking a shot whenever a character looks on with teary puppet-gel eyes would be a dangerous drinking game. And this was probably Harvey Keitel’s lowest point for his career. I would give a few dollars to watch him deliver those lines in a soundstage. Let me tell you about a film called Saturn 3...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I feel like the problem with this movie isn't "cultural appropriation" so much the fact that Japanese people are literally portrayed as less human than dogs. The fact that critiques are being framed in terms of cultural appropriation to me just highlights how incredibly powerful and deeply rooted racism towards East Asian people and societies is in the Anglo consciousness, that people are apparently unwilling to just call something as blatant as this racist and instead are diving deep into postmodern academic jargon for some sort of excuse/way out of acknowledging explicitly that portraying Asian people as subhuman is categorically wrong and unacceptable. Maybe I'm just a thin-skinned weaboo lib though? You’re loving dumb as poo poo. Edit counterpoint: Movie has dogs and Wes Anderson. I like both those things. Bum the Sad fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Let me tell you about a film called Saturn 3... Just because he wrestles with a nude Kirk Douglas...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
i'm really not sure why everyone's so incredibly hostile to the idea that, while this movie definitely means well, the way it treats Japanese people is kind of hosed up and dehumanizing like, to the point of unironically loving going "no, YOU'RE the real racist" over it
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
Because it doesn't present them as dehumanized or less human than dogs (as that other poster said), and people who viewed them that way in the movie haven't made good arguments as to why that's the movie's fault.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
IMHO its undeniable that the movie turns all of Japan into stereotypical cartoons while American (sounding) dogs get to be actual nuanced characters. That's all right there on the screen.  However, I don't believe racism or a feeling of otherness towards Japanese people is the cause of this. Making all the humans into silly caricatures is a narrative technique used by a lot of stories that features nonhuman or child characters as heroes. The effect thus isn't dehumanization for me, because these narratives just categorically swap adult humans for dogs/children/aliens. Basically I'm saying that if it were set in England, the humans would have been treated the same way. And sure enough, the farmers in Fantastic Mr. Fox were ridiculous British pastiche. Mixing cartoons with sincere emotion seems to be Wes Anderson's thing. To me, this film was sincerely sympathetic towards immigrants and "the Other", and explicitly endorsed the values of tolerance, kindness, and trusting those different (on the surface) from yourself. Also a lot of warning against demagogues and being motivated by fear. Even though the presentation of the Japanese feels awkward in an era when ANY representation of a group by a member not of that group is suspect, the film's ethical logic caused me to conclude: NOT RACIST. I liked it! Felt pretty slight compared to some of his other films though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2018 03:46
|
|
