Articulated Thoughts General Movie and Series News & Discussion

[TheSameIdiot]

I honestly.... I don't agree with the idea that the artist is responsible for how their art is received at all.

Let me posit Woody Allen. In Manhattan, he plays a 42-year-old man dating a 17-year-old girl. To the points above, that story could be about how fucked up it is for a middle-aged man to date a child. I think we can all agree that Allen was writing it, subconsciously or otherwise, as an endorsement of pedophilia. Lolita, it is not. Should he bear no responsibility for normalizing an adult's relationship with a child?

I admit I am ignorant about the entire Sydney Sweeney jeans thing

I'm envious. We had a 30-minute conversation about it at work. My thoughts can be summed up with "Pretty fucking stupid world we live in," and "Sydney Sweeney is disappointing."

 

[Ru1977]

Let me posit Woody Allen. In Manhattan, he plays a 42-year-old man dating a 17-year-old girl. To the points above, that story could be about how fucked up it is for a middle-aged man to date a child. I think we can all agree that Allen was writing it, subconsciously or otherwise, as an endorsement of pedophilia. Lolita, it is not. Should he bear no responsibility for normalizing an adult's relationship with a child?

Eh, we may be discussing two slightly different points here. I agree about Allen's intent, but it's still up to the audience to decide whether they agree with him or recognize he's an atrocious piece of shit. The audience should walk away thinking how fucked up it is for a middle-aged man to date a child, no matter how he portrays it. Their reaction though is still part of the mirror he is holding up to society.

It's like if you watch a documentary about gazelles, which obviously will have a bias and get you to sympathize with that species, but it's also going to portray the cheetah as the villain. But maybe you're a huge cat lover and you make up your own mind, I dunno. You see the cheetah as a real bastard, or just doing its thing. It's still up to the viewer to go along for the ride and make up their own mind. If someone watches Woody Allen and walks away thinking there's nothing wrong with her being underage, yes Woody Allen is horrible, but it also says something about that audience member. Should he still be allowed to say those things? I'd say yes, I prefer predators to hold up big signs begging society to do something about them.

So... I don't know what responsibility he should or even can bear for normalizing an adult having a relationship with a child, but I don't think he can make society think it's okay by producing his art, and do think he should be allowed to express those feelings, and deal with the repercussions.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

It's like if you watch a documentary about gazelles, which obviously will have a bias and get you to sympathize with that species, but it's also going to portray the cheetah as the villain. But maybe you're a huge cat lover and you make up your own mind, I dunno. You see the cheetah as a real bastard, or just doing its thing. It's still up to the viewer to go along for the ride and make up their own mind.

I hear you, but I think we're still reckoning with the power of the moving image. There's a reason Boomers share AI slop on Facebook. What do you mean the video of the baby being snatched by the tiger and rescued by the family dog is fake?

D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation is much the same. It's horrendously racist, but it was the highest-grossing movie until 1939. Gone with the Wind, the movie that supplanted it, is a slightly less extreme example. That movie popularized the Lost Cause myth. It's still in the culture nearly 100 years later.

We must accept that most people are powerless against propaganda.

If someone watches Woody Allen and walks away thinking there's nothing wrong with her being underage, yes Woody Allen is horrible, but it also says something about that audience member. Should he still be allowed to say those things? I'd say yes, I prefer predators to hold up big signs begging society to do something about them.

I have bad news about the sitting president and what we're collectively doing about it.

 

[Ru1977]

Haw! Well, sure.

 

[JakeEkiss]

Should he bear no responsibility for normalizing an adult's relationship with a child?

He should bear responsibility for having a relationship with a child first, and once he gets out of actual jail we can talk about putting him in art jail. I feel like if we did the one more relliably the other would be far less necessary.

 

[fac]

I'll use a lightly less (maybe) incendiary topic than Woody Allen - Han shoots first.

Lucas clearly was establishing that the SW universe was a bit lawless like the "old west", that Han was a potential wild card and a contrast to the more naive/idealistic Luke, and so when he leaves with his reward on Yavin IV Lucas has created some (minimal) doubt that he really is only in it for himself. So it works to establish the world and the character and his arc in the film.

But later, Lucas became uncomfortable that one of his 3 main heroes, who kids were idolizing, had killed Greedo and was pretty callous about it like it was no big deal. Even though Greedo was somewhat menacing and threatening, Han nevertheless may or may not have been in a "feared for his life" scenario where it was self defense. So he decided he was more comfortable if Greedo more overtly was a threat, so Han was justified. (Of course many geeks and nerds have debated this endlessly) From an artist standpoint, Lucas deciding he didn't want one of his heroes to possibly promote a "shoot first" message I thought was his choice and came from a good place - he was taking some ownership of the perception of the character and the potential impact on young viewers.

Now, I didn't think it was a needed change but I am never going to complain about making a hero more noble is a bad thing.

But one thing I find interesting is how that scene might change under different conditions -

Greedo is some creature we have never seen before and is like killing a "monster" in sci-fi terms, so it is mostly fantasy.

What if the bounty hunter was another human male that was Han's age, and Han shot him first? Does it play different that it is human and not an alien we have no connection to?

What if the bounty hunter was an 18 year-old kid like Luke, who is nervous and sacred and says he doesn't want to bring Han in but his family needs the money? Does it play different if Han shoots him first?

Art always has context brought in by the artist, especially narrative fiction, and I think the person creating the art needs to think about that.

Another great example is Clockwork Orange, and the reaction to it, and Kubrick possibly pulling the film due to either threats against his family or his own concern about some people copying the Droogs despite how he depicted them. Absolutely fascinating film, especially compared to the book, which in the UK version had a chapter that tonally changes the story compared to the US version which does not.

This is great interview from the time where Kubrick talks about some of the same issues as to artistic intent and responsibility - http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0070.html

 

[fac]

It's like if you watch a documentary about gazelles, which obviously will have a bias and get you to sympathize with that species, but it's also going to portray the cheetah as the villain. But maybe you're a huge cat lover and you make up your own mind, I dunno. You see the cheetah as a real bastard, or just doing its thing.

People sympathize with the gazelle, but at the zoo will spend more time observing the cheetah.

That might be profound, but probably not...

 

[fac]

This is great interview from the time where Kubrick talks about some of the same issues as to artistic intent and responsibility - http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0070.html

As an aside, the interview mentions Straw Dogs, which was also pretty controversial in 1971, as it was somewhat ambiguous about whether the lead (Dustin Hoffman) was justified in his actions at the end, was it glorifying violence or not, was glorifying a certain type of "manhood", and especially how a rape was depicted. A film I personally don't know what to think about it, but it is thought provoking, maybe not in a way I like...

 

[JakeEkiss]

We must accept that most people are powerless against propaganda.

I definitely agree most folks are never taught to identify it, and rarely care when they do to turn away from it. But people aren't inherently powerless against it. Quite the contrary. If you look at how advertising has changed over the last 40 years you can see it. People learn to filter things out if they are motivated to.

but I am never going to complain about making a hero more noble is a bad thing.

I will. Han shooting second changes who he is as a character, and so redefines his arc. Han in New Hope is one of my go-to examples of classic D&D alignment shifting. He starts chaotic neutral and moves to chaotic good, the journey being getting to know these folks and getting to like them, and finally deciding to risk his own life when he has a clear out to remain safe. Han's decision-making up to the 11th hour is always self-serving. He likes Luke and co., but he's willing to leave them behind if the money isn't good enough or the situation becomes too hopeless.

Making him more noble robs him of some of his journey, even if the endpoint is clear from the outset. We know this guy isn't actually going to ditch our heroes, we know he's actually a hero himself, but the journey is the point of his character. He's proto-Andor. And the arc is similar. Andor also starts by shooting a man in cold blood. The beat is important.

A super recent example is the notions of forgiveness and faith in the new Knives Out. It's really important to the core idea of that film that people be flawed, that the protagonist is trying to overcome a deep moral lapse, and a continuing instinct to do harm. He's trying to do better, but his struggle has more weight because he's had to come so far. It's what allows him to see the need for radical forgiveness in the case of the film's main villain.

 

[AceofKnaves]

He's trying to do better, but his struggle has more weight because he's had to come so far.

This is precisely the kind of character I relate to the most: the “fallen” person who is fighting like hell against their baser nature and doing their best to get better. It’s why, pre-prequels, I went so hard for Vader’s face turn at the end of RotJ, it’s why I gravitate towards guys like Wolverine and Batman who struggle against violent impulses while going hard for humanism . . . and it’s why I have a hard time relating to protagonists who are not presented as either flawed or struggling or both. It’s the old “Duke or Snake-Eyes” question: Duke has nowhere to “go”, he’s already “there” as far as idealized 80s protagonistic masculinity, while Snake-Eyes is “broken” and struggling between kindness and violence and has so many complicating factors getting in the way of his heroism so that when he is unerringly altruistic and caring it carries tons of weight.

 

[JakeEkiss]

This is precisely the kind of character I relate to the most: the “fallen” person who is fighting like hell against their baser nature and doing their best to get better. It’s why, pre-prequels, I went so hard for Vader’s face turn at the end of RotJ, it’s why I gravitate towards guys like Wolverine and Batman who struggle against violent impulses while going hard for humanism . . . and it’s why I have a hard time relating to protagonists who are not presented as either flawed or struggling or both. It’s the old “Duke or Snake-Eyes” question: Duke has nowhere to “go”, he’s already “there” as far as idealized 80s protagonistic masculinity, while Snake-Eyes is “broken” and struggling between kindness and violence and has so many complicating factors getting in the way of his heroism so that when he is unerringly altruistic and caring it carries tons of weight.

Yeah. And i think there is a lot of value in a character who is genuinely unlikable, who has done genuinely terrible things, struggling.

 

[AceofKnaves]

And i think there is a lot of value in a character who is genuinely unlikable, who has done genuinely terrible things, struggling.

It does depend on the character, though.
I famously find that trope thoroughly ineffective in MCU Tony Stark, mostly because I don’t “buy” his journey since he never stops being an abusive, bullying prick to folks around him. I have to see the kindness, just “I was bad and I want to be less-bad” isn’t enough for me. Indeed, I don’t even *want* redemption for shitty characters, more I want a *sacrifice*. Although interestingly I always shed tears for Vader in RotJ, and Stark I just spit on his corpse, sometimes literally.

 

[TheSameIdiot]

It does depend on the character, though.
I famously find that trope thoroughly ineffective in MCU Tony Stark, mostly because I don’t “buy” his journey since he never stops being an abusive, bullying prick to folks around him. I have to see the kindness, just “I was bad and I want to be less-bad” isn’t enough for me. Indeed, I don’t even *want* redemption for shitty characters, more I want a *sacrifice*. Although interestingly I always shed tears for Vader in RotJ, and Stark I just spit on his corpse, sometimes literally.

There's a notable difference between "shoot a guy who will probably kill you otherwise" and "supply weapons of war that maim and kill children for profit."

 

[Fletch]

Duke has nowhere to “go”, he’s already “there” as far as idealized 80s protagonistic masculinity, while Snake-Eyes is “broken” and struggling between kindness and violence

Is that a common interpretation? Can you talk me through that a bit?

I see them both as men of war, just with different ways of making peace with that.

 

[AceofKnaves]

Is that a common interpretation? Can you talk me through that a bit?

Absolutely.

First off, Duke: in the Marvel comics, he essentially has zero characterization: he’s a tough Top Kick and that’s it. He’s not even a “main character”, at all.
In the cartoon, we get limited backstory on Duke and all his stories revolve around him “in action”. It’s an 80s cartoon so no one has the best character development, but when Duke shows up he’s just there to do action and perform “the blond, blue-eyed leader” role. That’s . . . basically it for him. He’s certainly a “man of war”, but that’s basically all we know about him, and no more is required. He’s not deep.

Now I’ll start with the cartoon for Snake-Eyes: in the first miniseries, we find out he has some horrible facial injury, he loves animals and bonds strongly with them, and most notably that he is willing to shut himself away with radiation to save his friends by sacrificing himself. He has a full-on emotional journey in a cartoon from 1983.
Then the comics: Snake-Eyes is the full-tilt main character. We get TONS of backstory: his deep relationship with his LLRP ‘Nam buddies (including Stalker and Storm Shadow), his grief over the death of his twin sister, the intense hatred that Cobra Commander and the Baroness have for him specifically, the tragedy of his doomed training with the Arashikage clan, his radical sacrifice to save Scarlett that cost him his face and his voice, and that’s all *before* the present-day stories start. Snake-Eyes wars reluctantly with his sword-brother, is embroiled in character-driven conflict with Kwinn and Doctor Venom, has himself put in an emotionless killing-trance when he believes Scarlett is dead, is tortured, helps reform Storm Shadow, and lives in a cabin in the mountains with his beloved pet wolf.

There’s really no other interpretation that is supported by the story. Duke is “cookie-cutter army man guy”, Snake-Eyes is a multifaceted tragic character.