Articulated Thoughts General Movie and Series News & Discussion

[Ru1977]

The New 'Odyssey' Poster Throws a Bone to All Those Armor Complaints

And we mean that literally. Christopher Nolan directs the 2026 epic starring Matt Damon and Tom Holland.

gizmodo.com

 

[JakeEkiss]

And I have so many friends who *still* think Fight Club is the noble manifesto of embattled masculinity.

Uggh, this. I keep wanting to go back to that movie but it feels too much like a prophecy for how a whole generation of men would choose to fuck up the world while thinking they were saving it.

The big question is whether it's ethical to make art like Goodfellas.

Oooh I have many feelings on this one. The moment you start trending down the line of holding art to ethical standards (in fictional portrayals I mean, there are definitely unethical ways to produce and sell art) you start needing to define who the watchdogs of those ethical standards are. Who decides what ethical art gets produced? Who's most likely to get that role in the culture in which we live? Systems that police art do not have a good track record (Hays Code, Comics Code, etc). They are invariably run by folks who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives even when those lives are not harmful. Moreover, they are invariably run by folks who would rather sanitize depictions than actions.

I don't require my art to be moral (again, in depiction), I just want it to speak to me. Like, this is a very low-stakes version of this topic, but I think of, for example, a lot of the romantic relationships in some of my favorite comics. Jean and Scott? Bruce and Selena? Pretty toxic shit if it were real people in the real world. But in context of fiction, messy, melodramatic romance? Super hot. Gimme, gimme.

This is like my take on real cops vs Raylan Givens and Alex Murphy. Raylan and Alex are the best kinds of cops: fictional. And while I do agree people shouldn't lionize certain characters or try to embody them, that's on the audience. That's on the electorate and what they think is important to teach their kids.

I've got so many favorite pieces of media that are in some way problematic. While I tend to recommend them with content warnings for folks who are sensitive to one thing or another, because I am sensitive to some things myself, that doesn't really say as much about the work as it does about the people interacting with it.

I think there's a notion (not necessarily your notion, just generally) that art can fix the world, and thus that it has a responsibility to do so. I've just grown out of that view. Just like the idea that ttrpgs make people more empathetic. Nah. Not by default they don't. And art doesn't actually have an innate ability to fix society. Just ask Vonnegut re: Vietnam:
"During the Vietnam War, which lasted longer than any war we've ever been in -- and which we lost -- every respectable artist in this country was against the war. It was like a laser beam. We were all aimed in the same direction. The power of this weapon turns out to be that of a custard pie dropped from a stepladder six feet high."

I think Kurt's right, and art is often misconstrued as another savior for society, when society is the thing that needs to save itself.

It depends on the ratio of fans who misread the movie to those who understand it.

Continuing from the above point, there is also the issue that the thing you write is never quite the thing other people read (true of visual arts too). You don't control the context or POV an audience member brings to your work. You can only bring your own truth to the work and hope for the best.

I guess I'm willing to take your word for it.

But I'm also willing to go the whole rest of my life without understanding "The Departed" if it means I don't have to sit through it.

FWIW, you might enjoy Infernal Affairs, the movie it's based on, more. Departed is fine, but by comparison feels excessive in most ways. Departed also changes the ending significantly, and in some ways blunts the meaning.

The New 'Odyssey' Poster Throws a Bone to All Those Armor Complaints

And we mean that literally. Christopher Nolan directs the 2026 epic starring Matt Damon and Tom Holland.

gizmodo.com

Y'know this is so goofy I kind of dig it. In a vacuum this would give me the impression the movie is basically going to be a sci-fantasy telling of Odyssey and I would totally show up for that.

 

[altcunningham]

. If your satire or themes aren't obvious enough for the majority of your audience to read them, that's on you as the artist.

Not sure on this one.

Gut response Is that when I went back to school as an old person with a bunch of 18 to 20-year-olds, one of the mandatory electives was composition and debate.

In that class we had to read Jonathan Swift with no context and then there was a discussion response. You know, the famous story about eating babies and making leather out of their skin.

Only one girl out of 19 understood it was satire. Everyone else took it at face value. That can't be on Swift.

I don't know. There's too many media where I maybe powered by autism, I'm able to pick out the patterns and signs and declare things like 15 minutes in. And then I'm always disappointed to realize the majority of people around me didn't understand it, don't see the cues, and can't read the context or commentary. But at the same time I agree with you about your examples.

What took years for my therapist to drill into me? Is that what I assume is common Sense and common knowledge is never common. So I have to put that filter on this discussion, as learned as y'all are.

 

[fac]

I think there's a notion (not necessarily your notion, just generally) that art can fix the world, and thus that it has a responsibility to do so. I've just grown out of that view. Just like the idea that ttrpgs make people more empathetic. Nah. Not by default they don't. And art doesn't actually have an innate ability to fix society. Just ask Vonnegut re: Vietnam:
"During the Vietnam War, which lasted longer than any war we've ever been in -- and which we lost -- every respectable artist in this country was against the war. It was like a laser beam. We were all aimed in the same direction. The power of this weapon turns out to be that of a custard pie dropped from a stepladder six feet high."

When Jon Stewart hosted the Oscars, they did a montage of movies making big social points which was supposed to support the idea that films drive societal change, which he totally undercut with his comment after it played - "And none of those issues were ever a problem again" or something like that. I felt it was both absolutely savage but also true.

I think almost everyone who has a "career" will defend that what they are doing has some moral or ethical value beyond just work - its a needed service, how it helps people, how it makes some lives better in some way, etc. Art, film and music are no different - but they tend to promote the fact that "this is important and is making a point" as part of the promotion at times. And of course often art, film and music do this quite effectively, but I think it gets overstated.

I will add that I don't agree with censorship but I do think any artist should think about both the intended and unintended consequences of what they put out there. If you make a film about something like the importance of sexual harassment and how it needs to be addressed and taken seriously and systemically, the intended consequence is to change that reaction and encourage women to speak up and for people to support them - however if you make it seem like too much of a struggle, or stereotype it in the name of drama so that no managers or HR employees or men in general will support a woman in that situation, the unintended consequence is that a woman might take that to heart and feel like she can't trust anyone. That doesn't mean you don't do it, but I feel if you want to take on a serious topic, you need to do more than create a strawman and swat it down, and you need to address it really well - my main objection with many "message" films is that they create heroes and villains instead of discourse. Another example, if you have a one dimensional terrorist villain, you risk simplicity, stereotyping and maybe even undercutting actual grievances - but if you make them more complex, do you run the risk of suggesting that terrorism is partly justifiable - and how will someone react who isn't going to get the nuance that even if the cause may have some merit the actions do not?

A real world example, before most people's time here - in 1979 the file The China Syndrome came out that was about nuclear power plant safety and coverups and so on, pretty much taking the stand that every reactor was a disaster waiting to happen - not inaccurate but like most films drama and thrills were also part of the goal, it was not a documentary. About two weeks later there was the incident at Three Mile Island nuclear plant in PA - a serious problem that mimicked some of the films concerns, but was mostly contained and there is little evidence anyone was actually harmed, although it did come closer than it should have to being true meltdown. I think the film heightened the public reaction to Three Mile Island, and it led to the significant downturn in trust in nuclear power and in building new plants - which then was exacerbated by Chernobyl. Which is all fine, and not a debate about nuclear power plant safety, but the film taking the most dramatic view and magnifying fears made it nearly impossible for the discourse around how to proceed after Three Mile Island to be fully "logical" as the tone had partly been set by a heightened, fictional drama. Kind of how after Jaws every shark attack made the national news, and people where generally scared to go to the beach...

 

[altcunningham]

I think almost everyone who has a "career" will defend that what they are doing has some moral or ethical value beyond just work - its a needed service, how it helps people, how it makes some lives better in some way, etc.

As a writer artist musician I've never really clicked with any creatives who do this. For me it's all for me. To get myself worked out. And if someone else relates or take something from it that's cool. Most of the things that have impacted me most were never presented as anything more, and most of the things that claim they're doing exactly what you say never really hit for me. They usually read as inauthentic or opportunistic.

Think it was Henry Rollins that had some comment on Bono and how Rollins knows he's just making music for his mental health, but Bono acts like he's saving the world and is a douche for it.

That's just me though. That was my thought reading your excellent points.

 

[fac]

As a writer artist musician I've never really clicked with any creatives who do this. For me it's all for me. To get myself worked out.

So I'd suggest that is how you define your art having value - intrinsic value to help yourself is still a moral or ethical goal, and a valid one.

 

[altcunningham]

I don't know if it's this thread, but YouTube kicked me a video about a dude doing a criticism on another YouTuber. The critical drinker.

If you're not familiar, he is one of many cynical, Scottish accented content creators who makes being edgy and cynical their whole personality, which much of the audience mistakes for intellectual. One of many in the past decade or so of criticism where people criticize things for not being something as opposed for being what they are.

Mostly, that movie was not woke, ergo it is good, etc. what makes it good? It's not woke. Okay.

I let it play while I was cleaning up just now, and it was specifically brought up how this movie critic in question made videos about positive masculinity in media to counteract woke culture, and Tyler Durden is the patron saint of healthy male role model.

Hilarious.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

I should clarify that I'm not saying we should only make art that everyone, or even a majority, understands. After all, I'm certain a sizable percentage of the population misunderstands Dr. Seuss. Look no further than Paul Ryan, Rage Against the Machine superfan.

There's a big difference, however, in an audience misreading Moonlight or 2001: A Space Odyssey and a gangster movie. I think the artist takes on more responsibility when their art glorifies violence, pedophilia, what have you. The artist isn't responsible for the actions of madmen like Hinckley, but I think they are responsible for how their work is received by society writ large.

Art isn't changing the world. It might have a profound personal impact, but there are relatively few instances of a piece of art inspiring, say, a piece of legislation. Fac astutely pointed out the more nebulous effects. That's where I think the artist takes responsibility. Jaws is a great example. Jaws is exceptional in that 1) everyone saw it, and 2) it's easy to measure how it changed society. More fear around sharks, more shark hunts, etc. For everything else, it's subtle cultural shifts. Take Donald Trump, another prominent example. The way the president talks shifts rhetoric worldwide. No art will have that pull, but the cultural reverberations are similar.

 

[AceofKnaves]

That’s the whole point of making art, though:
One small drop in the cultural bucket, in the hope more drops will follow.

I definitely make art to heal myself, AND I live in faith and hope that the art I make could be a small part of a great wave of change.

 

[Ru1977]

I dunno... like if someone made a movie glorifying pedophilia, and a shocking portion of society celebrated that... is that the artists fault, or just art holding up a mirror to the culture and showing how shitty everyone else is as well? Taxi Driver and Judas Priest, Heath Ledger, and Neo didn't create the people who reacted to those things the way they did. And I feel it's likely something would have set those people off anyway. I mean, look at Manson with the Beatles. Maybe they feel emboldened or what have you, but whatever it is in those people that gets fed or provoked was already in there.

I honestly.... I don't agree with the idea that the artist is responsible for how their art is received at all. I'm sure they can guess, and hopefully have an idea when something may resonate, even negatively, but obviously not always otherwise there'd be no bombs. Obviously art is so subjective and every person who views it is likely to have at least a slightly different reaction to it than the artist intended.

 

[AceofKnaves]

I do think an artist is responsible for their *own* intent in creating art. They cannot control how it is received, although they CAN and SHOULD make public statements decrying negative reception and making their own intentions clear when necessary, THAT part is on the artist. Sydney Sweeney failed in that regard over the whole “great jeans” thing: she recently backpedaled a bit (probably because Amanda Seyfried’s people told her she’d better not tank The Housemaid), but it was ABSOLUTELY her responsibility to say “hey some people are taking this to a white supremacy place and I want to say, clearly and directly, that I am against white supremacy and against anyone who is a white supremacist.”

 

[Ru1977]

I admit I am ignorant about the entire Sydney Sweeney jeans thing, but yeah I definitely agree artists should own their intent, of course. I also agree they should react when something they put out is taken the completely wrong way, at least if it has damaging repercussions. (damaging to society I mean, I guess.) I always respected that David Lynch refused to get into all that, but as far as I know his work wasn't inspiring mass shootings or what have you. Which... I guess is almost surprising.

 

[JakeEkiss]

And of course often art, film and music do this quite effectively, but I think it gets overstated.

Yeah. I think what art does, when at it's best, is allow you to view uncomfortable things from comfortable distances. It absolutely can be cathartic on a person by person basis, but it's not medicine. It's not running for office. It's not working a soup kitchen. It can be wildly transformative, btu i think the moment an artist gets up their own ass about that possibility they're both taking too much responsibility and selling a certain amount of snake oil.

I will add that I don't agree with censorship but I do think any artist should think about both the intended and unintended consequences of what they put out there. If you make a film about something like the importance of sexual harassment and how it needs to be addressed and taken seriously and systemically, the intended consequence is to change that reaction and encourage women to speak up and for people to support them - however if you make it seem like too much of a struggle, or stereotype it in the name of drama so that no managers or HR employees or men in general will support a woman in that situation, the unintended consequence is that a woman might take that to heart and feel like she can't trust anyone. That doesn't mean you don't do it, but I feel if you want to take on a serious topic, you need to do more than create a strawman and swat it down, and you need to address it really well - my main objection with many "message" films is that they create heroes and villains instead of discourse. Another example, if you have a one dimensional terrorist villain, you risk simplicity, stereotyping and maybe even undercutting actual grievances - but if you make them more complex, do you run the risk of suggesting that terrorism is partly justifiable - and how will someone react who isn't going to get the nuance that even if the cause may have some merit the actions do not?

I definitely think an artist should be thoughtful about what they're putting out, they should not be unaware of the thing they're wielding. But like I say, there's a slope there we've gone down before, that we're on currently, where the idea that art MUST have a certain set of ethics becomes a cover for silencing folks. And I do think art benefits from artists exploring dark corners. I respect an artist who does something taboo and owns it *as taboo*.

I absolutely think it's valid to, as an audience, as consumers of art, give response to the work and choose not to support it. It's relatively simple to drive an artist or their into obscurity providing the people don't actually want it. The problem is how many people do want it.

As a writer artist musician I've never really clicked with any creatives who do this. For me it's all for me. To get myself worked out. And if someone else relates or take something from it that's cool. Most of the things that have impacted me most were never presented as anything more, and most of the things that claim they're doing exactly what you say never really hit for me. They usually read as inauthentic or opportunistic.

Yeah. I'm pretty similar in that regard.

Think it was Henry Rollins that had some comment on Bono and how Rollins knows he's just making music for his mental health, but Bono acts like he's saving the world and is a douche for it.

I hadn't heard that but it is a very Henry Rollins thing to say and I generally agree.

 

[JakeEkiss]

I do think an artist is responsible for their *own* intent in creating art. They cannot control how it is received, although they CAN and SHOULD make public statements decrying negative reception and making their own intentions clear when necessary, THAT part is on the artist. Sydney Sweeney failed in that regard over the whole “great jeans” thing: she recently backpedaled a bit (probably because Amanda Seyfried’s people told her she’d better not tank The Housemaid), but it was ABSOLUTELY her responsibility to say “hey some people are taking this to a white supremacy place and I want to say, clearly and directly, that I am against white supremacy and against anyone who is a white supremacist.”

Yeah, this is a better way to put what I was trying to say. The artist should be clear about their intent and view, as a modifier of and companion piece tot he work when the work becomes controversy.

 

[AceofKnaves]

And I do think art benefits from artists exploring dark corners.

ABSOLUTELY THIS.

Like I’m a large-framed, hairy, imposing white guy. You bet your butt that is a tool for going *really* dark. It’s a great privilege to have the tools to explore darkness in art, it’s essential.
And all the more reason for me to be clear about the line between the role and who I am, especially when I’m playing, say, Bill Sykes in Oliver!, who is a pimp and a violent criminal who beats and murders women and children. Or Dracula, who when played *correctly* is an unrepentant, sadistic rapist and mass murderer with zero empathy and zero conscience. Or Iago, or Mister Hyde, or or or or . . .

And those are just “bad guys”. That’s not even getting into themes or motifs present in the art.

Art must be free to “go there”, and also artists MUST be personally accountable for their art and its effects.