|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:The thread is repeatedly attracting this poo poo because people like the person you quoted are who this movie was made for I explained upthread that I didn’t like the movie. The film is just Garland’s personal freakout about the end of history. Poverty, war, disease, suffering, have been expunged from the lives of almost every Westerner. No one can psychologically deal with this, so Garland makes movies about the libidinal thrill of civil war and Columbia’s forty ugliest grad students camp out in the commons.
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:I explained upthread that I didn’t like the movie. while you’re at it can you spout off with something transphobic so you can be banned for it a third time
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 04:02
|
|
|
I'm not going to do a fake concern, but that's actually delusional. Over a third of the US population has gotten covid, and well over a million Americans have died of it in the last few years.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 04:15
|
|
|
Android Apocalypse posted:
I want to see this movie.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 04:35
|
|
|
ephori posted:I want to see this movie. You're in luck as it does exist! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PSNL1qE6VY
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 04:44
|
|
|
Anything this movie attempts to say about journalism in a time of war and/or fascistic repression in less significant than what's happening in college journalism right now and it's not even close. https://twitter.com/vivafalastin/status/1785529931482509564?t=cTR4_2NhiNB7MruE_G2RtA&s=19
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 06:28
|
|
|
The film represents the war as a strictly domestic U.S. problem, there is no suggestion that the rest of the world is in any trouble. The fact that Canadian dollars have held their value makes this clear. Compare this to children of men, which is clearly about an actual worldwide disaster. Yet people insist on categorizing the film as "apocalyptic" or dystopian, despise the fact that the world is fine. A film about a civil war in another country wouldn't be (and hasn't ever been to my knowledge) framed that way. It's only the myopic perception of people from the United States that views domestic strife as the apocalypse. The film makes this clear as well, because the journalists are doing the same thing they do in any country, reporting on violence and atrocity. It's only because it's in the U.S. that makes it novel for viewers but U.S. politics are also ultimately ancillary to the film. This is shocking to most people from the U.S.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 07:45
|
|
|
I’m the first person to dunk on American exceptionalism but you’re looney if you think the US could get into a civil war and it wouldn’t be incredibly destabilizing and outright existential for many countries.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 07:49
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I’m the first person to dunk on American exceptionalism but you’re looney if you think the US could get into a civil war and it wouldn’t be incredibly destabilizing and outright existential for many countries. In the real world perhaps, but it's explicitly not that way in the film
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 09:28
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:This must be like the sixth or seventh piece of dystopian media I’ve watched in the past year. Just a really good era for people who like to fantasize about the end of the world. Zombie movies since roughly the end of the 80's are less warnings/coherent commentaries and more fantasies. On first glance, the end of civilization seems like a great relief from a 9-5 and crushing debt. Politically disparate groups will forget their tensions out of necessity and work together to build socialist communes! Seldom Posts posted:The film represents the war as a strictly domestic U.S. problem, there is no suggestion that the rest of the world is in any trouble. The fact that Canadian dollars have held their value makes this clear. Compare this to children of men, which is clearly about an actual worldwide disaster. Canadian dollars have held their value (which would be impossible if the American dollar collapsed, lol) and there's gasoline.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 10:52
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:while you’re at it can you spout off with something transphobic so you can be banned for it a third time rap sheet check is the last resort of the coward
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:14
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Anything this movie attempts to say about journalism in a time of war and/or fascistic repression in less significant than what's happening in college journalism right now and it's not even close. some cop posted:rap sheet check is the last resort of the coward
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 12:50
|
|
|
ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:rap sheet check is the last resort of the coward i can live with you thinking that about me
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 13:09
|
|
|
Seldom Posts posted:The film represents the war as a strictly domestic U.S. problem, there is no suggestion that the rest of the world is in any trouble. The fact that Canadian dollars have held their value makes this clear. Compare this to children of men, which is clearly about an actual worldwide disaster. Apocalypses and dystopias don't need to be world-wide phenomenon. The apocalyptic events of Things Fall Apart are limited to the Igbo people. In The Handmaid's Tale, women are still free in Canada while they are oppressed in dystopian Gilead. The apocalyptic collapse of Phoenix Arizona and the resulting criminal dystopia are contrasted against the relatively peaceful and "normal" eastern states in The Water Knife. Sodom and Gomorrah are dystopias destroyed by apocalyptic fire from the sky, but Zoar is left standing. In the real world, most of us are living comfortably while we witness an apocalypse take place in Gaza (and largely ignore one taking place in Darfur). The DPRK is a dystopian nation while the ROK is arguably not (I mean, yeah, all of late capitalist society is dystopian, but in terms of degrees).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 14:48
|
|
|
I now have a hankering to see what foreign film critics feel about this movie.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 14:53
|
|
|
Seldom Posts posted:In the real world perhaps, but it's explicitly not that way in the film I love a good scifi yarn, why didn't you say so
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Owlbear Camus posted:more happens in the opening title cards of red dawn than in most entire movies and it's good cornball fun It is a very enjoyable movie in this way ANOTHER SCORCHER posted:I explained upthread that I didn’t like the movie. Haha what an awesome joke about people getting their skulls cracked by the nypd for the crime of saying their university shouldn’t directly fund the extermination of a people
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Haven't seen Come and See but at least there seems to be a historical context to its awful depiction, grounded in the hosed up and horrific dynamics of its place and time. Can you say the same for this movie? Keep in mind - COME AND SEE is now canonized as a generic "anti-war/horrors of war" film with no point of view, because westerners are inculcated into the belief that the Soviets and the Nazis were equally bad.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
One major distinction between come and see and other war films is that the director actually lived through that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:One major distinction between come and see and other war films is that the director actually lived through that poo poo. Oliver Stone says "hello."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
Five Who Came Back was a fictional documentary I guess. Also Starship Troopers is on the level of Come And See since Verhoeven also lived through that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
One of the central compounding issues is also probably that the kind of war journalist the movie is trying to glorify is basically extinct in the modern age.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:One of the central compounding issues is also probably that the kind of war journalist the movie is trying to glorify is basically extinct in the modern age.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 04:46
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Media literacy is truly in the toilet if people think this movie glorifies its war journalists. Genuinely shocking at how anyone can miss something so close to the surface of a film. The funny thing is I agree with you about what we're shown, but unless he's just loving with interviewers, that was the director's intent. https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/civil-war-alex-garland-journalism-a24-movie-interview-1234972556/
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 04:49
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Keep in mind - COME AND SEE is now canonized as a generic "anti-war/horrors of war" film with no point of view, because westerners are inculcated into the belief that the Soviets and the Nazis were equally bad. Baby steps my man, some day we'll acknowledge that, like New Orleans and Kansas City jazz, Nazi and Soviet mass murders each have their own unique flavors and flairs and it isn't at all reasonable to equivocate them.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 08:30
|
|
|
Owlbear Camus posted:The funny thing is I agree with you about what we're shown, but unless he's just loving with interviewers, that was the director's intent. If only there were some critics, perhaps some new ones, who would teach us to reject authors' claims about their intentions.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:If only there were some critics, perhaps some new ones, who would teach us to reject authors' claims about their intentions. Death of the Death of the Author.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
I think it's fine to acknowledge that art has a context and doesn't exist in a vacuum, personally. We should bring that back.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:49
|
|
|
Art doesn't exist in a vacuum? You've clearly never seen a Dyson.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:I think it's fine to acknowledge that art has a context and doesn't exist in a vacuum, personally. We should bring that back. Neither the New Critics nor Roland Barthes argued that art exists in a vacuum. The former argued that texts were timeless artifacts that could be understood intrinsically by closely examining their form and contents. Their position was a rejection of the idea that one needed to study the artist and their life in detail to understand their work; they felt the work would contextualize itself. The latter argued that we should radically reconsider the concept of authorship and authority because authors were bound by their own contexts and meanings were created by the interpretive act of reading or otherwise engaging with the artwork in question. His position was that we're all bound within our own contexts that frame our interpretations and we should stop privileging the author's context over the readers'. My point, aside from making a joke about the (actually pretty old and outdated) New Critics, is that what Garland said he was trying to do and what he actually did are not necessarily the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 22:45
|
|
|
It’s weird to me that people can consume media without believing in the death of the author. What are you, Clarence Thomas? Who cares what the gently caress the filmmaker intended other than as a bit of fun trivia? Interpret media on your own terms and through your own lens.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:It’s weird to me that people can consume media without believing in the death of the author. What are you, Clarence Thomas? please don't call people sex offenders because they disagree with you about movies
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:It’s weird to me that people can consume media without believing in the death of the author. What are you, Clarence Thomas? Who cares what the gently caress the filmmaker intended other than as a bit of fun trivia? Interpret media on your own terms and through your own lens. It's not weird to me at all. People want their opinions validated by an external source. It's mentally distressing (like, for real. verified with science) to have fellow humans around you telling you that what you're seeing/thinking/feeling is alien and that they don't experience the same. At that point, our distressed viewer/feeler has a couple of options. They can "get tough", and just say "I got the courage of my convictions, I liked <whatever>". Or they can invent a framework for validation, whether it's Rotten Tomatoes or the Author as the Source of Truth saying "yes, that was my intent. You nailed it buddy" or SnyderDome or the Oscars or a Red Letter Media video or whatever. Or a combination of some/all of these things. Whew! Now they know that they're feeling correctly and getting validated. This fundamental tension is why CineD, which has a lot of regulars of the first type ("gently caress 'em! I thought it was a good movie") gets a reputation as a bunch of contrarian weirdos from the people who are just looking to high five each other and agree that said piece of media was objectively dogshit/great and spout their favorite catchphrases from their chosen authority figure. It's why Blockbuster Video crashed and burned, it was a bunch of people nodding and agreeing with each other that Movie X ruled and Movie Y sucked. Boring!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
For my part, I don't care about authorial intent as a prescriptive frame we are obliged to interpret the text through. I just think the gulf between what the movie actually says and what Garland tells the Podsave Johns he wanted it to say is kind of interesting, or at least funny.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 00:17
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:Media literacy is truly in the toilet if people think this movie glorifies its war journalists. Genuinely shocking at how anyone can miss something so close to the surface of a film. Again, the trap is to be like “oh they are rude and crude people. This is obvious criticism!!!”, when that actually has little to do with the profession itself. Like, if I were to make a story about truckers and they were depicted as swearing and, I dunno, smoking cigarettes - who’d care? You don’t need Garland’s own take to get the preferred meaning of the film. You can just read, like, Walter Chaw’s laudatory review - where he reads the characters (not incorrectly, mind you) as beleaguered cynics crushed under the weight of an apocalyptic Trump administration, who are nonetheless “suffused with the nobility of duty and due diligence even at the end of the world.” In other words, their negative ‘immoral’ traits are to be understood as a reflection of the bad society they encounter, while their positive traits are magical, transcendent.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 03:13
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:It’s weird to me that people can consume media without believing in the death of the author. What are you, Clarence Thomas? Who cares what the gently caress the filmmaker intended other than as a bit of fun trivia? Interpret media on your own terms and through your own lens. This is a silly and self-contradictory post. "Your own terms" and "your own lens" can certainly incorporate details about the authors and their stated and unstated intentions. They're your own to define and deploy as you please. There are many valid reasons to incorporate stated and unstated intentions in your own interpretation and analysis. For example, by looking into the stated and unstated intentions of the United States' founders, you can see that Originalism practiced by Clarence Thomas and his ilk is a farce.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
I interpret all art based on the Death of Clarence Thomas
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 06:41
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:This is a silly and self-contradictory post. "Your own terms" and "your own lens" can certainly incorporate details about the authors and their stated and unstated intentions. They're your own to define and deploy as you please.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 06:54
|
|
|
Owlbear Camus posted:I just think the gulf between what the movie actually says and what Garland tells the Podsave Johns he wanted it to say is kind of interesting, or at least funny. What does the movie actually say?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
Gunfire is pretty cool
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 11:35
|
|
