I don’t go to the movies that often, but last night I went to see “Juno.”
It seemed a good bet. First of all, it’s a chick flick. And I’m a chick.
Secondly, all the reviews said the same things—funny, touching, smart, witty, sharp. It made many critics’ top ten lists for 2007. According to Rotten Tomatoes, it’s one of the brightest, funniest comedies of the year.
Can’t lose, right?
But within five minutes of the opening credits I suspected I was in deep trouble. Within a half hour I gave up as futile my hope that things might turn around, and that at least one or two of those adjectives listed above would come into play.
Maybe it’s just the final proof that I’ve officially become a hopeless old fart, but I did not laugh out loud even one time during the film. Once or twice I managed a wan smile, and that was pushing it. The picture featured a group of people so relentlessly ironic and sarcastic, so profoundly ill-at-ease with the display of anything resembling normal human emotions, and so continually (and, in most cases, needlessly) verbally aggressive (particularly the teenage Juno’s stepmom, who no doubt is meant to have a heart of gold), that it (and they) lost me at minute one and never gained me back.
This despite the fact that Ellen Page, the young and remarkably skinny actress who plays the heroine Juno, does as much as possible with the role. By the time the movie is over she convinces you that she does have some depth after all, as does another female character named Vanessa (I don’t want to give too much away, in case some of you want to see it after this glowing endorsement). But this does little to dispel the general feel the film gives, that of lost and directionless people muddling through lives devoid of the spark of whatever passes for poetry or humanity these days.
If the film is meant to be an ironic commentary on the emptiness and soullessness of our current culture, it fails miserably. It’s as empty and soulless as the culture it professes to criticize.
February 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Read a plot summary on IMDB. I’m not sure it’s supposed to be an ironic commentery on the emptiness and soullessness of our current culture. I think it’s supposed to be, like, funny or something.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
You are a hard woman.
I saw Juno a couple weeks ago, and on balance, liked it. Maybe because when I was sixteen (which was 35 years ago), I was sarcastic and cynical, as were probably 80% of my classmates. I think (some) sarcasm is a simple response to situations that are complex, that usually don’t deserve the sarcasm - appropriate for an adolescent, but hopefully something that teenagers grow out of when they find out, as Juno did, that things aren’t so simple after all.
Which leads me to wonder if part of the “emptiness and soulessness of our current culture”, at least as it is depicted on film, is not a reflection of those “artists” own inability to break out of adolescence.
But I digress. You didn’t laugh when the young man/ boyfired replied, after Juno comments how he doesn’t try to be cool, “Oh, I try really hard”? Everything about being a teenager, at least for me, was distilled in that phrase.
It was only a movie, but given the rest of the dreck in movie theatres…. At least there was some character development.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Were some or all of the actors in “Waitress” last summer?
February 6th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Carol Ward: That was one of the moments when I smiled, wanly. The problem with that character was that he was really, really blank. I just didn’t buy the fact that Juno actually cared for him.
And although I was one of the more sarcastic 16-year-olds you’d ever find back in—well, never mind when it was—sarcasm and cynicism was a much softer thing back then. It didn’t go as deep. Just as I think I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me, sarcasm and cynicism have moved into a whole new realm where I really don’t want to follow.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Your first mistake was believing critics. I find the customer reviews on Netflix are much harsher and more useful.
Try these for humor: Passport to Pimlico, The Rage in Lake Placid, Bread and Tulips; these for drama: The Fallen Idol, To Be and To Have, The Lives of Others. The Sorrow and the Pity is a lurid look into collaboration in France during WWII, which explained a lot and prompted a lot of though, much of which can be applied to the present.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Neo, ever since “American Beauty,” “Atlantic City,” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” I’ve been at a loss to see what critics find amusing and/or meaningful. Oh, and there’s always “Lost in Translation” and “Pulp Fiction” too.
Dreck, all of it.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
stumbley: My favorite movie in recent years is “Groundhog Day.”
February 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Hey, I liked it!
Agree about the kind of weird, over-the-top abuse dished out by the step-mom (which somehow reminded me of the weird, over-the-top abuse spewed by the Bush- or McCain-deranged), but the rest I thought was both fast and funny. Yes, it had a smart-ass, adolescent sort of tone, but in the best sort of way. I mean, adolescents are human too, right? Right?
February 6th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
My nephew and parents and I watched Groundhog Day on… Groundhog Day. Delightfully both funny and profound.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I have a post here about “Groundhog Day”, and its similarities to “Superman” and “The Wizard of Oz”.
Summary: they are all about the role of Men, with “Groundhog Day” being especially nasty.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Neo - if you haven’t seen it - watch The Dish - it’s a few years old as it was made in 2000. But it’s fun and funny and has some wonderful characters. Takes place in 1969 Australia and “The Dish” of the title is the one that brings us pictures of the first moon walk. (based on a true story) Maybe it will erase the bad taste from this movie. Whoever wrote it kept in mind that movies are supposed to be entertaining. Enjoy!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Drat - I forgot to add that I am not at all surprised by your review. That’s pretty much what I thought the movie might be like after watching the commercials. I also read the Rotten Tomatoes review and was skeptical.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Groundhog day is brilliant.
Will wait for the DVD on Juno — and maybe quite a bit after.
I also like most Meg Ryan Romantic Komedies (they spell it with a K in Slovakia), like Kate and Leopold (re-run recently, but I was busy).
True Lies had me gasping for breath after laughing at the machine gun rolling down the stairs and …
I think when the F* word becomes commonplace, the outlet for real anger/ frustration becomes worse.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
IF you liked the movie Groundhog Day, it is loosely, very loosely based on a book called “Replay”, by Ken Grimwood, that I enjoyed immensely. In the book the main character keeps returning to 1963: “Jeff Winston, a failing 43-year-old radio journalist, dies and wakes up in his 18-year-old body in 1963 with his memories of the next 25 years intact.”
It’s about the choices he makes as he lives what some of us dream of: What if you could live your life over? (and over)
February 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I liked the movie and laughed though out. But for such a visceral opinion such as yours I suspect there was personal angst in there some where. Still me liking the movie should not mean that everyone would like it but all my friends that saw it liked it as well and thought it was light hearted and deep enough to make a good movie.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Quite a few false notes were hit–Juno moves a bunch of furniture onto her ex’s lawn, exchanges some banter, and then tells him she’s preggers–but some of it was good, too. I liked Bleeker, who captures that adolescent awkwardness very well.
Paulie Bleeker: Like I’d marry you! You’d be the meanest wife ever, okay? And I know that you weren’t bored that day because there was a lot of stuff on TV, and then ‘The Blair Witch Project’ was coming on Starz and you were like ‘I haven’t seen this since it came out and if so we should watch it’ and ‘but oh, no, we should just make out instead la la la’
He carries this combination of shrewdness, tenderness, cluelessness, geekiness and awkwardness off perfectly.
Juno had too much 20-something writerly glibness to be a convincing character.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Recently saw “The Wedding Singer” for the first time. It was sweet and funny. “Groundhog Day,” “Caddyshack,” “Tommy Boy,” and the like are popular in our family; we loathed “Something About Mary,” “Knocked Up,” and similar tasteless dreck. Possibly my favorite comedies are “Hitch” and “Something’s Gotta Give.” The low-brow and affected seem to be taking over and it’s depressing. Discovering a quality comedic movie is like finding gold.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I have a little rant, with the caveat that I have not actually *seen* Juno:
I find it monumentally unfair that Juno (and its star, Ellen Page) have received rave reviews and accolades and award nominations for *portraying* a fictional young girl who gets pregnant (typical interview: “Ellen, you were so brave to take on this difficult role,” etc. etc.) while poor Jamie Lynn Spears, who is an actual girl who is actually pregnant with a real live baby (possibly from a Nickolodeon executive!) is getting ridiculed, lambasted, and mocked by the very same folks swooning over Juno and Ms. Page.
The hypocrisy is nauseating.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I agree with everything you say. Also, I felt that the dialog was constructed of all the things one wished to have said in a conversation, instead of the fumbled groping after meaning that actually occurs. I know it is art, but was just too perfect. Also, I wondered how people in other countries would view two sets of grandparents who seemed uninterested in the fate of a grandchild of theirs.
I think its getting the acclaim it does because it presents liberals with the pro-life argument in a way that speaks to them, and conservatives are so happy they are getting the message they are willing to overlook everything else.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Yeah, I hate to say it, but I think the “old fart” tag applies. So their sarcasm is stronger than yours, so what, yours was stronger than the generation before you! Juno has plenty of emotion in it, and it doesn’t look like you looked very hard to look at something new and different. Sadly, I know far, far too many people like Mark, just drifting through things, even when they’re successful. There’s nothing unusual about this character type in this movie.
I like Groundhog Day too, but like A Christmas Story, it’s been over-praised to the point of me not wanting to see it anymore.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Seafarious,
Could it be that Ms. Spears and her mom were trying to tout themselves as abstinence authorities, and then went got pregnant while Juno does not advertise it’s lead character in that way?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Ah, but this is the review I could have written based merely on the trailer and the identity of those praising it. I knew what it was as soon as I heard who liked it. Of all the usual left-leaning, collectivist suspects called it “warm” - they don’t know any better. For them, it a wistfully happy movie about the kinds of people and families and people they know. And that’s sad.
Part of this is because of what I think is the geo-cultural predestination of all the NYC-based critics:if you live in Manhattan, your default setting is irony and low-grade depression, with a side of sick-making self-absorption. The movie reviewers who think this is some kind of bullseye commentary on our failed culture, don’t understand it’s a commentary on culture…and guess what - it’s contained in a few square miles within a mere handful of America’s largest cities.
Regardless of what segment of society the makers of purport to reveal, it actually has very little relevance to the vast majority of America and Americans.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I saw it last night and enjoyed it. From my perspective, that of a 40-something old fartish male, it was well done. The characters are stumbling through life like most of us do, without a lot of poetry. The dialog is witty, though at times a little too polished for spontaneous conversation. Nonetheless, the plot and the characters are rather engaging. The characters were actually well developed. For example, Bleeker was just about tied down by the time he showed up for science lab having worked out the answers for his lab partners the night before. Add the fact that he was on the track team and his appearance and anyone could clue into him. The same with the almost forty and still wanting to be a rock star Jack.
It was actually to see something nice and somewhat life re-affirming (not just the choice to have the baby) for a change.
Anyway, that is my two cents.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Neo, a few pointers on movie selection, to be taken in the spirit in which they are given.
1) Avoid chick flicks generally, even if a chick. It’s not possible to add enough car chases, topless chicks, and/or fights to cheer up a chick flick. Once a movie is contaminated, it’s shot for good. In particular, avoid anything with “children” or such like in the title (e.g., “Who Will Love My Children?” RUN!!)
2) Avoid anything critics like. Critics make their living by extolling the virtues of crap that no one is his right mind would ever go see. It’s the way they gain cultural props, kind of like professing a hankering for haggis or menudo. No one actually likes it, but pretending to do so sets one apart from the crowd (kind of like watching the movie in the first place), which in their case is key to keeping their jobs.
No need to thank me now. I do this as a public service. /g
February 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
No matter how much you didn’t like Juno. It was a thousand times better than “There Will Be Blood”.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Chris, I’m worried about you, man.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I liked “Cloverfield”!
****DoD Property. Do not Duplicate. Last known recording of “Cloverfield” Incident****
A group of vapid, self absorbed 20-something New Yorkers at a stupid, vapid party are thrown into the street when buildings start collapsing only to see the head of the Statue of Libery roll past–thrown by “something alive”.
In the midst of swirling dust, papers and unseen horrors they find an inner resolve and determination to do the hard and right things.
Hud: “I heard the government created this thing and then it turned on them and killed us!”
#1 Guy: “What did you say!? What the f*&^ is wrong with you?!”
Hud: “I dunno, man–I’m just making up crap to keep myself sane!”
The military is uniformly courageous and helpful, but the living thing attacking New York spawns some kind of ‘parasites’ or ‘fellow travelers’–too small for the military to bomb or track–that have to be beaten and defeated by the people.
*wink* *wink* Get it? Good movie….
The Monster is The Monster. Not the Government. Not the Military. They are the good guys.
It was a breath of fresh air in a movie theater. I will get the DVD. I’ll bet it would be double creepy and realistic on the TV!
February 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
This reviewer liked it, but has some different takes than the usual critics. Perhaps it will be informative.
http://10-4goodbuddy.blogspot.com/2008/01/review-juno-2007.html
February 6th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Chris: I thought “Juno” was an inferior version of “Knocked Up” in the “something-nice and-somewhat-life-affirming” category. At least the latter had some real laughs in it. And Jack the rockstar wannabe reminded me of Bruce Jenner (not that there’s anything wrong with that…sorta).
February 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I find it monumentally unfair that Juno (and its star, Ellen Page) have received rave reviews and accolades and award nominations for *portraying* a fictional young girl who gets pregnant (typical interview: “Ellen, you were so brave to take on this difficult role,” etc. etc.) while poor Jamie Lynn Spears, who is an actual girl who is actually pregnant with a real live baby (possibly from a Nickolodeon executive!) is getting ridiculed, lambasted, and mocked by the very same folks swooning over Juno and Ms. Page.
Oooh… Be careful with that, Seafarious!
After 9 years of posting, I got banned permanently and irrevocably by Free Republic for expressing that very sentiment!
To pour salt, (or sal y limon) in it, the “Secure the Borders for American Culture!” crowd can’t be too squeamish about out of wedlock births if they want to win the demographic/culture war.
I assure you, Hispanics welcome every child in every circumstance; where rich gringos seem terrified having children in every circumstance!
Having created a culture where “The Children” has become a shibboleth to take away your freedoms and money, is there any wonder we are being ‘assimilated’ by a pro-child, pro-life alien culture?!
February 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
You made it about 4 minutes, 59 seconds longer than I did before I knew that I would hate this movie. How is that possible? The opening, oh so ironic shot told me exactly what I was in for. Ok, that would be impossible but the movie proceeded to be what I expected, too hip and ironic for me, honest to blog!
I think this will be one of those nominations that people will look back on in a year and wonder what the hell they were thinking.
Funny thing is that the radio ads are running nonstop in LA and the trite dialogue that passed for clever in the theater sounds, when heard on the radio, even more like bad sitcom lines.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Juno is crap. The basic trope is to have people say predictable but supposedly unexpected things in a dry, deadpan manner. You’re supposed to go “Haha! They said that like they really believe it! Aren’t these characters funny? Haha!”
Pffft.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
I’ll second Teresa’s recommendation for Dish. It was great fun, and I’ve seen it recently in discount racks in Wal-Targ-Mart-Et or something.
I recently had an unaccustomed chance to meet and some Hollywood people and I was impressed with their creativity and (this surprised me) their work ethic. I have no idea what stars are like but the many names that scroll as we’re walking out of theaters work their bunions off.
My previous armchair image of them had been, as armchair images usually are, quite unfair.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hmmm. Groundhog Day is my favorite movie of all time. I could watch it repeatedly still. I loved everything about it, so we agree there.
And yet I liked Juno - a lot. It’s no GhD, but then what is?
If anyone’s gotten to here without having the movie spoiled, you might want to stop.
Here’s what I liked. The boy was allowed to be decent, which is so rare these days. The cool dude rock guy was transformed before our very eyes into the wretch he deserved to be. The uptight Vanessa is shown to be in the throes of normal, human urges, and quite sweet. The parents are basically stable, even on their feet of clay. Especially the father is portrayed with all the failings of PC daddy-hatred, and shown to truly love enough to vastly outweigh the failings.
Everyone was served justly by the movie.
The message of the movie was that men and women still love, as men and women not androgony, even when they’re confused and ill-equipped for the trials of this century. I say in the 60’s we knew what we loved. By the 80’s we’d figured out what we hated. But in the ’00’s, we have no clue any more. We’re taught to cower in the middle, afraid to love or hate anything expect people who confidently love or hate. Juno, and everyone else, loved something or was exposed for failing to do so.
And it didn’t hurt that Juno sounded spot-on exactly like my 20-year old daughter.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Hey Neo, you should solicit reader’s suggestions for “little-known flicks that are worth the time to watch.” Mine would be “Two Mwn Went to War,” an English movie that is sweetly funny, based on the true story of two dentists who invaded France during WWII.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:20 am
I found Juno deeply creepy and disturbing, for reasons that I explain here. Perhaps my reasons for finding the film so grimly unfunny will parallel yours…
February 7th, 2008 at 6:43 am
I’m only commenting because I thought Juno was Fantastic. But I love those kind of weird movies like Napolian Dynamite and Being John Malkovich. I suppose they are not for everyone. I found Juno to be refreshingly smart and so much different from the bland writing that has been coming out of Hollywood for so long now.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:14 am
neo,
I liked Knocked Up, though the drug references were a bit overwhelming. I get it. They like to smoke pot.
I see the differences between the two being mainly the result of the different stages of life the protagonists are in.
This was Knocked Up being played out in the John Hughes (age only) demographic.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:28 am
There is, unfortunately, nothing to laugh at, about teenage pregnancy—wherein, let’s face it, very often the father isn’t some sweet, bashful, adolescent boy, but a guy in his 20’s, or 30’s, sometimes married, sometimes already having to support more than one kid he’s fathered on other women.
(Let’s also face it—-snarky, unpleasant, self-centered teenagers are boring, even though the media does think them the most wonderful human beings on the planet; and teenager-dom is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on American society.)
February 7th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Dave, I liked “Napoleon Dynamite” too; but I really can’t compare it to yet another glorification of teenage, unmarried pregnancy, especially when what happens in “Juno” sounds so very unlike what happens with most unmarried, pregnant, underage girls these days.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Neo, I gave up on Hollywood after Starship Troopers. They need to fire the whole lot and start over from scratch.
As far as I’m concerned, the only problem with the continuing writer’s strike is the potential rise of realilty TV.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Also–
I admit to enjoying Groundhog Day immensely when it was released… but if you think that it is a movie of “recent years,” then you ARE an old fart.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
q2600, yeah, Hollywood is pretty hopeless. So is television. I suggest we all sit down and read a good book. Or find other, less preachy, politically correct forms of amusing ourselves (where we don’t have pretty, talking heads telling us what to think and feel, and how we should live our lives.)
(Agree with you about “Starship Troopers”, by the way—that was godawful, and nothing like the actual Heinlein book. Hollywood actually dislikes science fiction, and can only do it as, supposedly, stupid B movie stuff, or if there’s some cheesy, supposedly deep moral attached to it.)
February 7th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I used to have a terrible time explaining the difference between the book and the movie to people. People would always ask, “Well, what’s the book about, then?”
It’s ABOUT a guy from Argentina who enlists in the military to fight arthropoidal extraterrestrials. The ABOUT isn’t important; that’s just how Hollywood excuses destroying the work itself as “artist license.” It’s the HOW that’s important.
Now, I use the illustration of Drill Instructor Staff Sergeant Zim, posed the question (I don’t have to book in front of me, so the wording may not be verbatim), “Why do we need to learn how to throw knives when we have atomic weapons?”
The movie’s answer: “Put your hand on that wall! (thunk) The enemy cannot push a button if you disable his hand! MEDIC!!”
As if that had anything to do with the enemy they were training to face.
The book’s answer: “If you do not understand the difference between a situation that requires a knife and a situation that requires a nuclear weapon, then you have no business being a soldier.”
‘Nuff said.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I disliked Juno so intensely that I actually walked out of the theater.
And this is from someone who liked Knocked Up so much I saw it twice.
February 7th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Yes, q6200, there is so much in the book that never makes it into the movie—including the part where a good-goody student remarks that war has never solved anything (or something along those lines; I don’t have the book in front of me either), and the professor replies with a list of extinct civilizations, such as the Carthaginians, etc., for whom war, did, indeed, settle something—it defeated them, and empowered their opponents; a kind of tough, clear-headed point of view, that Hollywood, with its muddled sentiment and tendency to churn out stock figures: the good pacifist, the bad military man, etc., just can’t deal with.
They also left out much of the real nature of the bugs, (who are intelligent, formidable enemies, not just big, ugly slugs, as in the movie) the humans sometime enemies, eventual allies, “The Skinnies”, the eden-like world they’ve selected to evacuate the human race to, in case the worst comes to worst (anyone who knows its location is given hypnotic commands to kill themselves, if captured by the aliens), and the fact that all human, of all nations, are united—or should be—in this war. I found it quite laughable that “Rico” in the movie is played as this blonde stormtrooper type, when in the book, he’s a Filipino from Argentina, who speaks tagalog and admires Ramon Magsaysay.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
As I said, Hollywood is usually terrible when it comes to Science Fiction, and just can’t deal with it, except as B-movie stuff, i.e., “Attack of the Sex-crazed Zombie Women”, or something with a horrible, progressive moral, i.e., “Ya see, the Emperor represents George Bush, and the evil galactic empire is Amerikkka, while the heroic freedom fighters are the Palestinians, and the evil space Gypsies are Israel. . . “
February 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Yay! A movie thread by people I would actually like to hear opinions from! (My wife and I live outside the U.S. and don’t watch any TV..only movies…to explain our obsession.)
Recently saw “Knocked Up’ and “40 year Old Virgin”..some of the same actors…(the chunky curly red head guy is pretty funny) and heard these portrayed actually as a sign of a “conservative” values resurge in H-wood…because they somehow portray two values scourged mercilessly for decades inside the Left Coast bubbleworld - marriage-family and chastity. My thought was that both managed to mock and mangle both values while trying to praise them. Go figure. My conclusion was that hese writers are so disconnected from these values that even their attempts to renew them turn out insipid.
As for comedy, while I love “Groundhog Day,” “What About Bob?” (neo, gotta love that one) or “the Three Amigos,” all I need is to slip in “The Producers” (2005 musical version) in my DVD player to the musical tryouts part or the “Springtime for Hitler” part and will unfailing weep with howls.
February 7th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
P.S..wasn’t “Starship Troopers” satire or am I totally out of it? Speaking of SF…anybody like “Serenity”?
February 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Speaking of recent films — Cloverfield was very good!
February 7th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Serenity was great; Cloverfield was BRILLIANT (although headache-inducing). Starship Troopers was not satire, it was liberal spin-a-brilliant-novel-into-crap.
February 7th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
This is, without a doubt, one of the saddest comment threads I’ve ever read. What a sad, strange world (most of) you people live in. I do think, however, that this - more than anything ever before written by Neoneocon and her fans - very neatly illustrates everything that’s wrong with movement conservatism.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
How so?
February 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Why is this such a sad thread, “some guy”? Is it because a lot of us don’t like “Juno”? Or the movie “Starship Troopers?” Or that we do like Heinlein? Or science fiction? Life is full of sad things, to be sure (the way it treats science fiction, for instance, is enough to make sci-fi lovers sit down and sob, sometimes!)
Go read a nice Jane Austen novel; you’ll feel much better.
Schnargley, as q2 says, “Starship Troopers” was typical Hollywood spin-a-good-book-into-dreck stuff. It was, I think, a liberal director’s attempt to satirize what he believed was an evil, racist, warmongering book and make everybody hate it. Problem is, the book isn’t evil, isn’t racist, and shows war as hard, brutal, sometimes necessary, but distinctly unenjoyable.
In short, the stupid director was satirizing a book I strongly suspect he never bothered to read. The book itself is not satire. It’s actually a very compelling look at what humans would actually have to do, in order to fight off an alien invasion (as opposed to simply being conquered as in Wells’, “War of the Worlds.”)
February 7th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
q2600
As I said, I can’t tell if it’s Sci-Fi, Heinlein, or Hollwyood’s treatment of science fiction in general (a heartbreaking topic, to be sure) that’s making him sad.
As for “Juno”—I didn’t realize an unrealistic, rather silly, snarky teenage movie carried such moral, and ethical weight that disliking it would be cause for such grief! It’s only a movie! Read some Jane Austen, drink plenty of fluids—you’ll feel better in the morning.
(Haven’t seen “Cloverfield” or “Serenity” yet, but will seek them out, based on your recommendation.)
February 7th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Serenity is better if you’ve seen the Firefly series (but it isn’t necessary). Take something for motion sickness before watching Cloverfield!
February 7th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Oh dear, does Cloverfield have the same nausea-inducing-wobbly camera stuff Blair Witch Project had?
February 7th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
In fact, I will say this about Starship Troopers: I grew up a military-hating peacenik hippie (except for the drugs, which I suppose means I missed the whole point of being a hippie). I joined the U. S. Marine Corps originally as a “way out” of a bad situation at home (it is said that everyone in the Corps is running from something, or running to something. I do remember a lot of running!).
At any rate, by the time I had finished 13 weeks of Marine Recruit Training, 6 weeks of Marine Combat Training, 9 weeks of Military Police School, and been stationed on Okinawa for a month, I still wasn’t really sold on the military.
It was Starship Troopers that sold me. In it, I discovered the necessity and inherent nobility of the warrior class. I read it three times consecutively (it was on the Commandant’s reading list, after all!).
The movie of the same name was the closest I have ever come to walking out of a cinema while the movie was still playing.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The same, but worse (I think, I don’t really recall Blair Witch that clearly, I was bored to tears).
February 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Here are some bits that just really leave me at a loss for words:
“Just as I think I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, it left me, sarcasm and cynicism have moved into a whole new realm where I really don’t want to follow.”
Is anything in life not a metaphor for politics and how bad the Democrats are?
“The Sorrow and the Pity is a lurid look into collaboration in France during WWII, which explained a lot and prompted a lot of though, much of which can be applied to the present.”
Because America is full of traitors!
“Of all the usual left-leaning, collectivist suspects called it “warm” - they don’t know any better. For them, it a wistfully happy movie about the kinds of people and families and people they know. And that’s sad.”
Do you know any real, actual liberals, or do you just make up cartoons to hate?
“No matter how much you didn’t like Juno. It was a thousand times better than “There Will Be Blood”.”
Now that’s just blasphemous, but not really central to my point.
“…the father is portrayed with all the failings of PC daddy-hatred…”
The dad was portrayed a stern-but-loving, take-no-bullshit awesome dad. Did we see the same movie?
’something with a horrible, progressive moral, i.e., “Ya see, the Emperor represents George Bush, and the evil galactic empire is Amerikkka, while the heroic freedom fighters are the Palestinians, and the evil space Gypsies are Israel. . . “‘
If I recall correctly, a) Lucas started writing a few years before Bush was on the political scene, and b) it’s movement conservatives who can’t watch a movie qua movie, but only qua propaganda.
Meh. Heinlein was overrated, but not bad.
I would love to be able to put on a pair of crazy-glasses and see the world as you do, to know what it’s like to become enraged by everything! And they say liberals are angry all the time! It just must be so depressing not to be able to see a movie and enjoy it for things like plot, acting, etc, because you’re so caught up in the dogma of liberal Hollywood and blah blah blah.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
[i]Is anything in life not a metaphor for politics and how bad the Democrats are?[/i]
That depends upon how open one is to metaphor.
[i]Because America is full of traitors![/i]
I’m really hoping a clarification will make that a less inflammatory statement…
“If I recall correctly…”
I don’t recall any Space Gypsies in Star Wars. I do believe TalkinKamel was making a generalization. And a valid one, at least since the mid-’80’s.
As for the rest–I believe that it is probably easier to ignore the propaganda quotient of a movie when you agree with it, than when it is demonizing you personally (doubly in my case, being not only not “right-wing,” but in the military).
February 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Hmmm… Tags work differently here?
February 7th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Correction to above: it should read “being not only “right-wing”, but in the military.
The second “not” was a typo. If you are wondering, I say “right-wing” rather than “conservative” because I am a neo-libertarian. I consider it to be a blending of the best of both neo-conservatism and libertarianism; Code Pink considers me the anti-Christ (or anti-Mao, which would be more palatable to both sides).
February 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
“Code Pink considers me the anti-Christ (or anti-Mao, which would be more palatable to both sides)”
This is what I’m getting at - this is either meant seriously, which indicates a really messed-up view of people who disagree with you politically, or its a really bad joke that…well, indicates a really messed-up view of people who disagree with you politically.
And aren’t liberals supposed to be the whiny cry-babies who can’t stand criticism? Come on! If you’re in the military, man up! You’re supposed to be made of tougher stuff than that. No? Who cares if Hollywood makes fun of you? (About which I’m a little incredulous, since I can’t really think of any movies I’ve seen that portray the military negatively.)
February 7th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
“I’m really hoping a clarification will make that a less inflammatory statement…”
Ok, here’s a clarification: maybe I was wrong, but I interpreted the above comment about collaboration as being a dig against liberals qua traitors. Considering that Mitt Romney, formerly-serious presidential contender and former governor of Massachusetts, called a vote for Clinton or Obama a vote for surrender to terrorists in his concession speech today, I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume (though perhaps I jumped the gun!) that the liberals-are-traitors meme was what commenter Matthew M was getting at above.
But, I digress from my original point was: try, try, try as hard as you can, readers of Neoneocon, to enjoy a movie as a movie, and not be ready at every moment (as some of you seem to be) to take umbrage with the slightest deviation from ideological purity.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
(About which I’m a little incredulous, since I can’t really think of any movies I’ve seen that portray the military negatively.)
No, I imagine you can’t….
February 7th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“But, I digress from my original point was: try, try, try as hard as you can, readers of Neoneocon, to enjoy a movie as a movie, and not be ready at every moment (as some of you seem to be) to take umbrage with the slightest deviation from ideological purity.”
O thank you, wise one. I will do my level best to follow your sage words of… sageness. I will fail, of course, because I am an inexorable moron, but I must thank you for gracing me with your enlightened and attractively mournful presence.
Would that I could live up to your standards! Think of the beautiful vistas that would appear before mine eyes, were I to jettison my perpetual umbrage and instead awaken, to embrace the gentleness and oracular profundity of thine words!
Alas, it will not be so. I try, try, try, yet I fail, fail, fail. Woe unto me, who roams the earth wailing, the ashes of neoconservativism despoiling mine mouth.
And I’m not interested in theatrical releases anymore. I watch tons of “Asia extreme” movies on DVD. Amazing art, some of it. That and “war porn” on YouTube and LiveLeak. When the helicopters come in and fire their high-expolosive cannon shells at the terrorists, and you see the vermin disappear as neatly as if a magician waved a magic wand, well, it just makes your heart sing, I tell ya.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I dunno, Some Guy; you certainly took umbrage at what you consider our excessive ideological conservative purity—then you take further umbrage when we don’t just fall into line and agree with your criticisms of certain movies.
(And as for the space gypsies, yes, I was making a generalization about science fiction movies—in fact, I was making a joke! And please don’t tell me there haven’t been way too many overly-ponderous, faux significant “Use the Force, Grasshopper!” science fiction movies, encouraged by George Lucas, but beginning with the tedious 2001!)
If you don’t want us to think of liberals as whiny crybabies, why not stop the whining and umbrage-taking?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
“And please don’t tell me there haven’t been way too many overly-ponderous, faux significant “Use the Force, Grasshopper!” science fiction movies, encouraged by George Lucas, but beginning with the tedious 2001!”
ENCOURAGED BY GEORGE LUCAS??!?!?!? 200!?!?!??! Written by Arthur C. Clark and directed by the mad genius Stanley Kubrick???!?
Now I know I’m dealing with a bunch of rubes.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
But, back to my original point: I feel bad for you folks! Though it’s likely distorted (though not as distorted as yours!), my image of you people involves you wandering all day, outraged by the shape of clouds and the chattering of squirrels who are insufficiently patriotic and pro-warrior culture/anti-liberal. It must be tiring, getting worked up so much.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
try, try, try as hard as you can, readers of Neoneocon, to enjoy a movie as a movie, and not be ready at every moment (as some of you seem to be) to take umbrage with the slightest deviation from ideological purity.
Some guy:
I’ve hear that same complaint from a couple of my more dimwitted girlfriends after seeing a movie.
I heard that from one real dimwit of a girlfriend after seeing “The Handmaidens Tale” and remarking “Wow, they really crapped on the Christians in that one!”
I heard that same sentiment from another real “mensa-member” of a girlfriend after seeing “The Sum of all Fears” when I remarked “Nazis?! In the book, they were Arabs! Why can’t arabs be bad guys for a change?”
You’re not actaully one of my former stupid, but hot, girlfriends are you?
Now, I thought it was conservatives that had trouble with “seeing the nuance” and abstract thinking….
February 7th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Written by Arthur C. Clark and directed by the mad genius Stanley Kubrick???!?
That’s actually a good point:
how come Hollywood made a couple of true-to-the-source movies of Sir Arthur Clark movies but had to camp up and crap on the book by Robert Heinlein?
Why should I go see a movie with George Clooney or Ben Affleck or any other Hollywood dicks who insult me and my beliefs? Why would I give them money?
February 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
my image of you people involves you wandering all day, outraged by the shape of clouds and the chattering of squirrels who are insufficiently patriotic and pro-warrior culture/anti-liberal. It must be tiring, getting worked up so much.
Personally, it’s rainbows and upside down triangles that set me off….
I see a big ol’ rainbow in the sky and I just know the rain is pushing the homosexual agenda!
February 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
‘I heard that same sentiment from another real “mensa-member” of a girlfriend after seeing “The Sum of all Fears” when I remarked “Nazis?! In the book, they were Arabs! Why can’t arabs be bad guys for a change?”’
In the same comment thread, we have one commenter expressing his entertainment over a scene in a movie (True Lies) in which Arabs, the villains, are hilariously gunned down by a dropped, spinning weapon. We also have another commenter bemoaning the fact that liberal Hollywood refuses to depict Arabs as villains.
I propose that there exists only one way of settling this: Thunderdome. Two men enter, Gray, yet only one man leaves.
“Why should I go see a movie with George Clooney or Ben Affleck or any other Hollywood dicks who insult me and my beliefs? Why would I give them money?”
Don’t! This has been another round of Simple Answers to Easy Questions.
“how come Hollywood made a couple of true-to-the-source movies of Sir Arthur Clark movies but had to camp up and crap on the book by Robert Heinlein?”
Part of the problem here is the assumption that “Hollywood” is a single, undifferentiated entity, rather than a huge array of writers, producers, directors, etc etc etc, ad infinitum, all working together and competing to get their projects made. Clark lucked out and got to work with Kubrick, et al. Heinlein was dead, and did not luck out. There was no conspiracy. OR WAS THERE?!?!11?
“I see a big ol’ rainbow in the sky and I just know the rain is pushing the homosexual agenda!”
You see this as an exaggeration, but what am I to make when reading a comment thread started by a blogger who can’t seem to stop herself from, in the same breath, comparing her growing disdain for movies to her disdain for Democrats? I feel sorry for people who seem to live in such a grey world that they can’t enjoy movies - movies! - anymore because their politics won’t allow them to. Liberals are frequently accused of having promoted the idea that everything - such as the personal - is now the political, yet it is conservatives I see insisting that art be processed not through the lens of art, but politics - and politics at its crassest, at the level of dull propaganda.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Some Guy
Heckety-whiz! Now all us rube types know we’re dealing with a snob! (Shuckins!)
Kubrick was okay, but let’s face it; 2001 was a big, ponderous bore. Clark was good, but he had his woo-woo new age tendencies, which, sadly, he gave in to, as he aged.
As for myself, I don’t spend my days wandering—I spend them flitting about through the air on my force-powered wonder-cycle, contemplating the whichness of what, outraged by the chattering of Smurfs (who have invaded my neighborhood on roller-skates) and those obnoxious aliens, who camp out in my back yard, and use the barbecue! I’m okay with clouds; I’m even okay with squirrels! I’m tired of the pigeons, though. They poop on everything
Now, now, Gray, don’t you know that actors such as Affleck and Clooney are superior to us mere mortals? Why, you must go watch them! Otherwise, you’d turn into a pro-military,liberal-hating rube, and you’d probably say mean things to squirrels, too! You’re obligated to watch their dumb movies, because it’s going to make you a better person! What’s more, if you don’t like their stuff, you’re going to make you-know-who unhappy! Suck it up, man, for the good of society! (And to make you-know-who smile!)
Seriously, I’m not sure why Heinlein has been treated the way he has, while other Sci-fi/fantasy writers, such as Robert Bloch, and Clark, have been treated relatively well. Bloch was lucky in that Hitchcock liked his work.
Heinlein had a rep for not liking liberals, and sometimes saying mean things about them (and maybe to squirrels and clouds and fluffy-bunnies, too!) so he was disliked by the Left. I suspect the director of Starship Troopers just had in in for him, and didn’t really give a damn about the book.
Clark, as I said, did have his new-agey woo-woo side, so they approved of him. Of course, other sci-fi writers have been treated badly too—among them Zenna (The People) Henderson and Andre (Beastmaster) Norton. And some, like James Schmitz, C.L. Moore or R.A. Lafferty, no one’s even tried adapting any of their stuff!
Yes, Handmaid’s Tale crapped all over Christians; what makes it worse is that Atwood blurted out in some interview that she’d been inspired to write it by Taliban’s oppression of women in Afghanistan. So, basically, her anti-Christian screed is actually about Islam—which she didn’t have the nerve to tackle. No wonder the book’s so skewed, and hard to believe (even as a fantasy.)
Of course, Christians don’t issue fatwas against writers they disapprove of, or order them killed. . .
February 7th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“Yes, Handmaid’s Tale crapped all over Christians; what makes it worse is that Atwood blurted out in some interview that she’d been inspired to write it by Taliban’s oppression of women in Afghanistan. So, basically, her anti-Christian screed is actually about Islam—which she didn’t have the nerve to tackle. No wonder the book’s so skewed, and hard to believe (even as a fantasy.)”
Could it have been - and I don’t know for sure, because I don’t know Atwood’s motivation, so I’m just guessing - that Atwood was trying to take religious extremism in a foreign country (Islam, Afghanistan) and couch it in such a way that it would be familiar to a different audience (Christians, America)? That is, might the experience of living under religious tyranny strike a little closer to home, make a little more sense, etc etc etc, once familiar, unthreatening aspects of life here were recast in a different way?
Maybe she just wanted to write about the experience of religious extremism and living under tyranny, in a very general sense, non-specific to any time or place. But maybe she hates Jesus! I don’t know. Sometimes authors are tricky like that, using one thing to represent another without saying so in so many words.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“I suspect the director of Starship Troopers just had in in for him, and didn’t really give a damn about the book.”
It’s stuff like this that leaves me searching for words. Where do I start?
I mean…do you honestly imagine there exists such a (liberal) human being who thinks to himself “the best way to really take a crap on that jerk Heinlein, who expressed some conservative ideas, is to take a book - a book widely considered to be critical of fascism in a subversive, satirical manner - of his and spend months or years of my life immersed in the material, creating a film that’s a really dumb version of the book that’s sure to piss off legions of devoted, nerdly fans”?
Isn’t it possible that, in the long chain from book to script to proposal to filming to studio interference to post-production to release, someone made a bad film because they’re simply a bad writer or director, or if someone decided that Heinlein’s material was too heady to earn lots of money, and dumbed it down to widen its appeal?
Or maybe THE LEFT hates Jesus AND Heinlein. Let me consult my liberal handbook….
…oh, I see that you were right. Yes, we hate Jesus and Heinlein. That solves that one.
February 7th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I’d like to know if Some Guy has seen any movies that profoundly challenged his leftist views in say, the past ten years. (Righty-challenging movie examples: Lions for Lambs. Redacted. Erin Brokavich. (sp))
Furthermore, Some Guy, I’m going to make an internet assumption based on your use of “rube” that you’re an urbanite living in a huge coastal hive-city. Here’s the assumed problem - you read local newspapers and websites that agree with you. You watch movies and TV shows that agree with you. And finally you associate with people who agree with you. Hence, you’re never exposed to opinions that differ from yours and have no idea what’s going on in the flyover states unless Jon Stewart makes a joke about it.
Your beliefs are never substantially challenged, so when a conflicting idea is presented to you it must instantly be EVIL or DUMB.
Whereas those of us in the sticks, unless we want to watch nothing but FOX News and listed to 1960’s country, are constantly exposed to conflicting viewpoints. I watch Keith Olberman and am told I’m stupid. I watch The Simpsons or Family Guy and am told I’m ignorant. I read a Reuters article and am told I’m evil. I visit a gaming website and see banner ads selling “Screw Bush” t-shirts. I read a gossip magazine and get told I should vote for Obama. However, I also read local news and associate with people who agree with me. Since I am exposed to both sides of the world, I have to constantly adjust and defend my views.
Those of us in the sticks are constantly presented with both sides of the Blue/Red conflict. You urbanites are exposed to blue, blue, blue all day long - and have no _interest_ in what we think - because once you leave city limits, there’s nothing but Jesus and NASCAR.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
some guy - if you read Atwood’s many comments about the book over the years, she is quite clear that she considers Christian fundamentalism nearly as dangerous as Afghani Taliban rule, and her book was crafted to highlight that danger. She has been specific that she was not trying to awaken American audiences to the dangers of Islamism, but of Christianity. Sorry her actual quotes refute your theory.
You are rattling around with enormous collections of assumptions that would simply be tedious to take apart one-by-one. I recommend simple humility, and consider the possibility that what you believe about conservatives and what you think about your own crowd may not be accurate. Much of what you criticise as oversimplification and prejudice on our part is actually just shorthand for more rigorous discussions we have had long ago. It is not your fault that you were not present for those, and it is a bit unfair of us to use shortcuts so frequently, like a student not showing his work.
However, I feel little obligation to re-explain complicated discussions on every thread. If you stick with the ex-liberal blogosphere very long, you will encounter the reasoning behind the shorthand soon enough.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
By the way, q2600—great story about how “Starship Troopers influenced you on the military.
Amazing, what a good book can do! (Somewhere in the afterlife, Heinlein is grinning.) Did you ever read “Citizen of the Galaxy?”
(I’m afraid I’ll have to pass on “Cloverfield”, at least until it comes out on DVD; I think I manage it small screen. For me, the scariest thing about Blair Witch Project was the fear that I would lose my lunch, right there in the theater! That swinging video-cam effect has a very bad effect on me. I will take a look at “Serenity.”)
February 7th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Part of the problem here is the assumption that “Hollywood” is a single, undifferentiated entity, rather than a huge array of writers, producers, directors, etc etc etc, ad infinitum, all working together and competing to get their projects made.
Who all work in the same 4 blocks of New York or LA, read the same papers, go to the same schools, date the same people, watch the same shows, buy the same crap and vote for the same candidates.
Oh, if all of America’s movies came out of Salt Lake City you would claim a conspiracy you shallow-minded, surface-skimming numpty!
February 8th, 2008 at 5:45 am
The soullessness of modern culture is a tragedy for adolescents, not a stuff for jokes. I have seen it in my five children, for almost 25 years now. They need, desperately need, some basic foundations of moral and spirituality. How they manage it? Paradoxically enough, in a traditional form of adolescent revolt. Some became fanatically religious, choosing the most extreme, exstatic kinds of orthodoxy, some choose more playing forms of the same, in imaginary realms of role playing games. Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings” is all-time favorite, the second choice being legends of Arthur cycle. They have their Camelot recreated, and every weekend I see dozens teenagers in medeival garments, with wooden swords and breast-plates, going to nearby park to play.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:16 am
My apologies for the length of the post; I am combining several short replies to items that came in while I was away.
This is what I’m getting at - this is either meant seriously, which indicates a really messed-up view of people who disagree with you politically, or its a really bad joke that…well, indicates a really messed-up view of people who disagree with you politically.
Code Pink does not qualify as “anyone who disagrees with me politically.” Code Pink holds mockeries of military funerals—outside of Walter Reed Medical Center. Code Pink physically assaults people attempting to enter recruiting stations of their own free will. Code Pink compares President Bush to Hitler for his invasion of Iraq (historical inaccuracies aside, the irony of a group publicly identifying themselves as having a socialist agenda attempting demonize someone by comparing him to a former head of the German National Socialist (Workers?) Party is just outstanding).
And aren’t liberals supposed to be the whiny cry-babies who can’t stand criticism? Come on! If you’re in the military, man up! You’re supposed to be made of tougher stuff than that. No? Who cares if Hollywood makes fun of you? (About which I’m a little incredulous, since I can’t really think of any movies I’ve seen that portray the military negatively.)
I don’t recall whining; I’m quite proud to have people like Code Pink think of me as an enemy. If I am to be hated by someone, I’d much rather be hated by bullying postmodern socialist wackos than by people who actually go out to make the world a better place.
Ok, here’s a clarification: maybe I was wrong, but I interpreted the above comment about collaboration as being a dig against liberals qua traitors.
I saw a comment about a movie. Perhaps you could clarify how it ties into treason for those of who haven’t seen that particular movie?
It must be tiring, getting worked up so much.
I wouldn’t know. Why don’t you ask those people who are spending entire days assaulting people and disrupting local businesses near the USMC recruiting station in Berkeley?
In the same comment thread, we have one commenter expressing his entertainment over a scene in a movie (True Lies) in which Arabs, the villains, are hilariously gunned down by a dropped, spinning weapon. We also have another commenter bemoaning the fact that liberal Hollywood refuses to depict Arabs as villains.
“True Lies” came out in 1994. Try finding one post-9/11! Even “The Kingdom,” probably the best treatment I have seen of the subject by Hollywood, in the end turned into a moral-equivalence argument between mass-murdering terrorists and the FBI agents trying to stop them—which simply isn’t valid, no matter how emotionally involved agents might get in any particular case.
Part of the problem here is the assumption that “Hollywood” is a single, undifferentiated entity, rather than a huge array of writers, producers, directors, etc etc etc, ad infinitum, all working together and competing to get their projects made.
Two volcano movies in the same summer. Two mass-extinction by impact movies in the same summer (one by asteroid, the other by comet). Two alien invasion movies the same summer. 99% of vampire movies treat vampirism as a disease which renders its victims allergic to ultraviolet light, rather than the historical idea of demonically-possessed corpses who were less powerful in sunlight due to its symbolic connection to life. There hasn’t been a movie since “The Green Berets” in which the infantry wins by doing what the infantry does—closing with and destroying the enemy. In Hollywood, it’s always “hide and wait to be rescued by tanks or helicopters.” If any offensive action takes places, its usually immoral and lead by some schmuck who’d rather be smoking pot in his parent’s basement. Need I continue?
do you honestly imagine there exists such a (liberal) human being who thinks to himself “the best way to really take a crap on that jerk Heinlein, who expressed some conservative ideas, is to take a book - a book widely considered to be critical of fascism in a subversive, satirical manner - of his and spend months or years of my life immersed in the material, creating a film that’s a really dumb version of the book that’s sure to piss off legions of devoted, nerdly fans”?
No, I know that there was a working script by the Heinlein estate that was faithful to the original work, and Ver Hoeven refused to use it. His depiction of the military had to be fascist and incompetent—as a beginning of the changes he made. I doubt the feelings military personnel or fans of Heinlein actually entered his mind. I’m not familiar with “Starship Troopers” being regarded as either for or against fascism—and certainly not in a subversive manner, which would require that fascism actually be in force in the U. S.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I’m still trying to get italics to work. Some of the above post is from “some guy,” and some is my rebuttal to him. If it’s a terrible problem to pick out, I can re-post it with quotation marks… but I’d rather not use up Neo’s resources to make another huge post.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Oh, and for negative portrayals of the military in movies, here is a VERY short list:
1. Redacted
2. Platoon
3. Full Metal Jacket
4. Buffalo Soldiers
5. Apocalypse Now
6. Starship Troopers
7. In the Valley of Elah
8. Lions for Lambs
9. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
10. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Ad nauseam.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Okay, I’ve re-posted my long reply above on my own blog, where I know how the daggoned italics work. Feel free to read it there, and comment on either site.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:39 am
q2600 (Qatari? Are you from Qatar, or is that a play on Atari?),
You can italicize comments with the tags (just removes the spaces within brackets).
Anyway, I think it’s clear that you and I watch very different movies, even if they share the same titles. The versions of Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket weren’t anti-military. Jacket was, as far as I could tell, about how awful war is. Can’t one say that war is not a pleasant thing, least of all for the soldiers who fight it, without being against the military?
And Apocalypse, drawing from Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, is about the evil that lurks within everyone’s heart - the sinful nature of mankind, etc. A very Christian sentiment, no? Conrad’s novel was set in the Belgian Congo and had to do with ivory hunters, not soldiers. Coppola’s Apocalypse was - like Atwood’s recasting of an unfamiliar situation into familiar terms - a recasting of Conrad’s exploration of the sinfulness of man into familiar, modern terms - the Vietnam War, which likely resonated more with modern audiences than would have Leopold’s Congo.
But here’s part of the issue: I don’t go to see movies like Lions for Lambs because they look awful. I don’t want to see overtly political movies because I don’t want to see movies used for political purposes, ie, propaganda. But if you’re finding anti-military bias in movies like The Fantastic Four, then I have to assume both that you’re predetermined to find (or hypersensitive to) bias. And, you have awful taste in movies. Fantastic Four? No thanks.
“Two volcano movies in the same summer. Two mass-extinction by impact movies in the same summer (one by asteroid, the other by comet). Two alien invasion movies the same summer. 99% of vampire movies treat vampirism as a disease which renders its victims allergic to ultraviolet light, rather than the historical idea of demonically-possessed corpses who were less powerful in sunlight due to its symbolic connection to life.”
Two words: “cashing in.”
No, wait, more than two words: spend less time worrying about the technical details of vampire movies and spend more time enjoying movies. Seriously, “99% of vampire movies treat vampirism as a disease which renders its victims allergic to ultraviolet light, rather than the historical idea of demonically-possessed corpses who were less powerful in sunlight due to its symbolic connection to life.” You’re seriously upset by this? I feel like the chances of meaningful dialog are slim.
“I’m not familiar with “Starship Troopers” being regarded as either for or against fascism—and certainly not in a subversive manner, which would require that fascism actually be in force in the U. S.”
Actually, I used the term “satirical,” which is not the same thing as “subversive.” While satire can certainly be subversive (in either a political sense or an artistic sense, depending on context), it does not necessarily have to be. So, no, Heinlein’s work can be satirically or subversively anti-fascist without fascism actually prevailing in the US.
“His depiction of the military had to be fascist and incompetent—as a beginning of the changes he made.”
Here’s a thought - maybe he just didn’t get the point of the book. Heinlein’s book could have depicted a fascistic military as satire (even subversive satire!) and the director could have just been a bad director and translated it literally, losing the satire (and subversion!). It happens! All the time! Good source material is butchered by bad directors so often that, well, I find it difficult to read conspiracy into it. Bad directors, writers, actors, etc, certainly outnumber the good.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
‘“The Kingdom,” probably the best treatment I have seen of the subject by Hollywood, in the end turned into a moral-equivalence argument between mass-murdering terrorists and the FBI agents trying to stop them…’
Are you sure we saw the same movie? I recall a movie in which heroic Americans (and it was quite a cheerleading film, though highly entertaining) and heroic anti-bad guy Arabs found faceless bad guy Arabs and won. The heroic anti-bad guy Arab even got to die heroically and tragically! It was feel-good, all around. For one, brief moment, the bad guys were given a face and a humanizing touch, just to remind audiences that the bad guys, too, were human, though still bad guys - and into that you read moral equivalence? I can only conclude that you have a hair-trigger sense for moral equivalence, likely searching for it (maybe without even meaning to?), leading to some false positives.
The movies I like to see are the ones that - like all really good literature - address the human condition, namely: death and the search for deathlessness (yes, a Tolkien reference!). I was dragged to see “A Prairie Home Companion,” not knowing what to expect, and was treated to a rather beautiful, whistful two-hour meditation on mortality. I saw “The Last King of Scotland” and, besides a gripping tale of Idi Amin and Ugandan history, an exploration of being-in-itself versus spectacle - as exemplified by Whitaker’s line to McAvoy’s character that his death would be the first real thing he ever experienced. I saw “The Assassination of Jesse James” and, besides a beautifully-filmed Western, an exploration of the existential crisis.
All wonderful films; I recommend you see them and let me know if you find bias in them. If so, well, please continue fuming about the technical details of vampire movies. If not, I have plenty more to recommend!
Cheers,
some guy
February 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
some guy;
My blog actually started as a mass e-mail to friends and family while I was doing contract work in Qatar. I wanted a clever name, so I made a pun on the old Atari 2600 I won from a box of Captain Crunch in elementary school. When blogs came into existence, I simply transferred medium and abbreviated the title.
I have nothing against the concept of an antiwar movie; war is bad, and should be a last resort. I would wish, however, that Hollywood would direct its antiwar propaganda towards the TERRORIST WHO ATTACKED US, rather than those of us devoted (upon our lives) to defending America and her people.
What I am rather discussing is a “negative portrayal of the military.” I can’t watch Hollywood military movies, because the characters are always craven, conniving, bloodthirsty, incompetent, drug-addled, etc. If I’ve been in the military for 12 years, in two different branches of service, and I can’t identify on any level with any of the characters in a movie about the military, doesn’t that say something?
I did not say that I was upset by Hollywood portrayal of vampires; I merely pointed out, in reference to your argument that Hollywood cannot be viewed as monolith, that… well, it is. There may be hundreds of writers working for dozens of companies, but they’re all using the same ideas. Not constantly reworking old material into; simply copying off each others’ notes.
If you will re-read your post, you DID use the word subversive regarding Starship Troopers.
Ver Hoeven never read the whole book Starship Troopers. And, he was handed a faithful script and threw it away. That’s not “butchering good source material,” it’s ignoring source material in favor of your own agenda.
The last 90 seconds or so of “The Kingdom” are flashes back-and-forth between two groups, at the end of which, the advocate of each group states verbatim the same motivation for their actions in the movie. How do you NOT read moral equivalence into that?
February 8th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
“How do you NOT read moral equivalence into that?”
Could the director and writer have been suggesting that, perhaps, the struggle against terrorism is far from over, regardless of a single victory?
I suppose both readings of the movie are perfectly legitimate - how deliciously postmodern of me! - but I guess I’m confused by a reading of moral equivalence in a movie in which one character - a heroic good guy - says to another that he wishes only to kill the villains and nothing else, and is met with approval from the other heroic good guy. This, it would seem, is a powerful case against moral equivalence, no? That the terrorists are so despicable that our heroic antagonists, with whom we are meant to identify, wish to annihilate them?
And, again, I guess I’m confused: if someone wanted to make anti-military propaganda, would the most effective way be the production of a terrible movie that no one takes seriously and bombs and the box office? Either he’s a bad director who made a bad adaptation, or he’s a bad propagandist who made bad propaganda. Which is worse? Does either matter?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
And, again, I guess I’m confused: if someone wanted to make anti-military propaganda, would the most effective way be the production of a terrible movie that no one takes seriously and bombs and the box office?
No, you could do it like Spiderman where the Green Goblin bad guy is a corrupt defense contractor using military equipment.
In fact, ‘corrupt defense contractor’ has definitely become a Hollywood cliche….
Some guy, can you even name a pro-military or pro-defense movie made in the past, oh, 30 years?
February 8th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“…I suppose both readings of the movie are perfectly legitimate - how deliciously postmodern of me! - but I guess I’m confused by a reading of moral equivalence in a movie in which one character - a heroic good guy - says to another that he wishes only to kill the villains and nothing else…”
You are correct; that is a very post-modern view. Here’s the clarification: the statement rendered is not, “We will stop those responsible for this.” The statement, given by both FBI special agent and terrorist mastermind, is “We’ll kill them all.”
Not only bad law enforcement policy, but no specification as to who “them all” is. Add in the constant switching between the views of both groups, leading the same statement of intent by each, and the meaning is really quite plain. I don’t even need to interpret it in the context of all the OTHER “we’re just as bad as they are” nonsense Hollywood produces.
The answer to the dilemma posed in your second paragraph is referenced in your first: Hollywood is post-modern. Post-modernism, being a rejection of the values of logic, liberty, and personal responsibility of the Enlightenment, does not care for profit. It only cares about THE AGENDA. Hollywood will continue to take losses to push THE AGENDA, and will never run out of items on THE AGENDA to push.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
It only cares about THE AGENDA. Hollywood will continue to take losses to push THE AGENDA, and will never run out of items on THE AGENDA to push.
Can anyone think of a Hollywood movie in the past 30 years with a Christian character in it who acts in a kind, decent, admirable manner?
I can’t think of one off hand, but there’s gotta be one….
February 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Well, that depends upon how strictly we define “Christianity.” I found a list of 27 here:
http://lookingcloser.wordpress.com/2008/01/16/name-20-recent-films-the-portray-christianity-in-a-positive-light/
But to be honest, I don’t recall any Christian references in most of them.
-”Serenity” has Shepherd Book, but he’s never actually identified as Christian, and “Shepherd” is not a Christian clerical appellation.
-”The Exorcism of Emily Rose” has a weak, sympathic Christian and a vindictive, unsympathetic Christian.
-”The Name of the Rose” (I don’t think it’s on that list) has a strong, capable monk… but he’s a heretic.
-I haven’t seen the “Left Behind” series, but I’m fairly certain that they portray Christianity in a positive light… Of course, Hollywood in general deplores them, and the Rapture is heresy, canonically speaking.
February 8th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
But to be honest, I don’t recall any Christian references in most of them.
Nah…. But they were scraping for anything ‘cuz people want to see a movie that doesn’t explicitly crap on them and their beliefs.
I did enjoy the Serenity series–it was kinda “Libertarians in Spaaaaaaace!” but it was good.
I just wanna be not crapped on, not lectured to and not propagandized by a movie.
Like the pro-euthanasia movie “Million-dollar baby”–I heard about it and said “What?! Women boxing?” That’s not right…. Heh.
But for a lefty like Some Guy, going to a movie is like a fish swimming in water–they don’t even know it’s wet!
February 8th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Great Muppets reference–and very appropriate! And, having sat on that side of the fence for my first 25 years, I can certainly affirm the fish analogy.
February 8th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Hey, how about “The Blues Brothers?”
“I have seen the Light!’
February 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Am I hogging the board?
I went back to look at the list again… “The Nativity” is on it. I suppose I’ll have to go see that movie, now; I want to see how they put a strong Christian character into a story set PRIOR to the birth of the Christ.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Paul Verhoeven on “Starship Troopers” (from the Paul Verhoeven Fanpage
(horrors!) http://www.ghosts.org/verhoeven/starshiptroopers.html)
“The movie is in fact stating that war makes fascists of us all.”
“It’s difficult perhaps to accept in a movie that the people that are your
bosses, that are your government, that are supposed to be taking care of you,
ultimately don’t take care of you and care only about a war that might not
have been necessary in the first place.”
“It’s certainly also talking about American politics now. And so it is really
saying as we have perceived in the past twenty, thirty years that there is a
tendency in American politics that if people disagree that we would use power
and violence. […] Power and violence is always used at a certain moment
when things take too much time to solve in a democratic way.”
“We tried to find [actors] that were resembling a proto-fascist ideal.”
From Starship Trooper Facts and Trivia (same page):
Paul never finished the novel of Starship Troopers. He thought it was too
philosophical and depressing.
Well. I certainly feel silly for suspecting that there might have been some BIAS involved.
February 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“Post-modernism, being a rejection of the values of logic, liberty, and personal responsibility of the Enlightenment, does not care for profit. It only cares about THE AGENDA.”
See, I really wish I knew how, but I just don’t know how to continue a conversation like this.
February 8th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Well, if you take exception to my comment, you might try researching the history of post-modernism a bit to refute me. It’s as easy as skimming an article at encyclopedia.com or (less reliably) wikipedia.com. Alternatively, I recommend the following book (which will, of course, support me):
http://www.amazon.com/Explaining-Postmodernism-Skepticism-Socialism-Rousseau/dp/1592476422/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202508294&sr=1-1
Or perhaps you could explain this other post-modernism with which I am not familiar?
February 8th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Sorry; encyclopedia.com above should be www.reference.com .
February 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
some guy:
I have a written a brief summary of my position on my blog. Hopefully it will be useful in clarifying our difference of opinion, and will certainly be faster than ordering a book from amazon.com.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Some Guy - who is getting a lot more attention than he deserves.
I sort of agree with you. I would love to just enjoy movies for what they are. Unfortunately, I am continually sidelined in that effort by critics that praise movies whose only virtue is in fact their casual trashing og things I care about. Exhibit A - “American Beauty”. How many awards did that piece of dreck get just because it made military people look like homophobic psychpaths? Exhibit B - it was OK, but because it had the cause du jour of the time, transvestites, it was talked up like a masterpiece. We conservatives could go on and on.
Fine - this doesn’t bother you. Then disagree and move on.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Sorry I meant to name the film “The Crying Game” as exhibit B.
February 8th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Exhibit A - “American Beauty”. How many awards did that piece of dreck get just because it made military people look like homophobic psychpaths?
American Beauty did that pretty well, along with trashing America in general and stroking the Boomers ‘do your own thing’ mantra.
The Crying Game was actually pretty good–cept I’ve been to Juarez enough to say: “Hey, that’s a dude!” in the first few minutes….
February 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Futhermore, have you ever noticed that formerly fat bastard Ebert loves any movie with even the smallest frisson of gender bending?!
Look at his reviews–no matter how lame the movie was, if there was some element of transvestism or transgender, he just raves about it.
I think he loves the gender-bending movies even more than the anti-american movies….
February 9th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Again, I’m not sure how to continue this conversation.
To wit:
First, I still have trouble with your interpretation of The Kingdom. The filmmakers took great pains to humanize the al-Ghazi character; they showed him with his family, they showed the growing friendship with and respect from Foxx’s character, they showed him dying tragically and heroically, they showed Foxx’s character interacting with al-Ghazi’s son in a scene that mirrored an earlier scene with the son of another fallen comrade, and so forth. And you read the final scene as suggesting that the FBI agents intended to…kill all Arabs? Indiscriminately? Really? That’s really how you read that final scene?
Furthermore:
“American Beauty”. How many awards did that piece of dreck get just because it made military people look like homophobic psychpaths?
This would make more sense if the murderer in that movie weren’t a gay man. That movie, as overrated as it was, was about the prisons we build for ourselves. Every character had built a prison for him or herself without realizing it - Fitts was a homosexual who was so terrified of being himself that he had built an incredibly repressed prison for himself. Joining the Marines was, for Fitts, quite obviously an attempt to cultivate the strength needed to repress his own identity through the discipline of the Marines. It failed, with tragic results. Look at the characters who were happy in that movie - Jim and Jim, who lived openly as gays, not denying their identities; Ricky, who paid lip service to the rules of the society around him, recognizing them as arbitrary; and Lester, who after meeting Ricky also tries to find happiness through freedom.
The fact that the villain of the story, if there is one (beyond the limitations we place on ourselves without realizing it), belonged to the military was incidental to the story. If anything, Fitts represented a failure to live up to the ethos of the Marines - he had joined for the wrong reasons and failed even to achieve his own goal of crippling self-discipline. To read into this story a critique of the military as being psychopathically homophobic would require ignoring the huge fact that the character was gay. Following your logic (that the filmmakers wanted the audience to think that all military folks are homophobes), you’d have to conclude that the filmmakers wanted the audience to think that all military folks are gay. Does that make any sense?
I can only conclude that either you are incredibly inattentive while watching movies, or very forgetful about the movies you see, or are so incredibly eager to find bias against you in movies so you can continue to feel like a part of a repressed, discriminated against group at the mercy of the mighty, monolithic LEFT that runs HOLLYWOOD and are postmodernists dedicated to THE AGENDA (the idea that postmodernists could have an agenda - individually or collectively - is sort of at odds with postmodernism) that you twist art into propaganda. You have lost your ability to enjoy art AS art; you’re so ready to find bias and propaganda that you insist on finding it even when it’s not there.
And, I’ve tried to make a case, but when you’re willfully misreading a movie as straightforward as American Beauty, there’s no real point in continuing to talk.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Some guy -
thank you for taking the time to seriously answer my reply. I think you are a fairminded person, but just don’t “get” something that we conservatives experience frequently.
Let me give you some more examples:
The movie “Good Night and Good Morrow”. McCarthy is shown smearing as a communist a young dedicated idealist. Problem: he really was a communist.
Syriana - shows that CIA is the real evil. The terrorist guy is actually an alright dude.
Munich - Israelis cutting corners in a desperate effort to catch people who have murdered innocents, and prevent them from murdering more, are equated with those same terorist murderers.
JFK - instead of the real assassin, who was actually a communist, a conspiracy of military and anti-communist cubans did it.
Countless movies where the real enemy of course is not the obvious bad guy, but some businessman/general/or right wing politician.
Pretty much any movie that has a Christian, especially a Southern white male one, with a large exception for the “inexplicably” overlooked fine movie, The Apostle.
Please name me one movie where Hollywood has falsified historical fact to make a liberal figure into a villain. I and the people on this board can name possibly dozens. To return to the movie “American Beauty” - making the neighbor military was an intrinsic part of its attack on the American dream, not incidental. Its all part of the same tired “people against gays are really latent gays” trope that we’ve heard so long.
Just for the record, I think gays should be able to live openly and without fear, as should anyone, but I am tired of having the latest liberal cause relentlessly pushed on me.
From your previous responses, I think you are someone who just doesn’t care about themes of any type expressed in movies, and that is fine, but other people have a legitimate right to care about them, especially when they are always biased against their beliefs.
Again, I ask you to really think about this. No response necessary - please find one movie where Hollywood has falsified historical fact to make a person revered by liberals into a villain.
Anyway, thanks for the exchange. I hope you try to look for and recognize this pattern. Once you see it, its like Waldo, you can’t stop seeing it.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Sorry - meant to say “I and the people on this board can name possibly dozens where history has been bent to demean conservatives and their values”.
Also, in rereading your last response I see you do care about theme, as shown by your analysis of American Beauty, but I would submit to you that by your own analysis, the movie expresses the idea that self suppression is bad. To some extent I agree with you that this is the message of the movie. This also a deeply anti-conservative idea. No one can function as an adult, especially a parent, without self suppression. Does this make us “inauthentic”? Yes it does, but it’s the price we are willing to pay to have kids who we love.
Anyway - I would welcome a Hollywood where any ideas are expressed freely, and awards are given based on merit, and both liberal and conservative, and everything in between is expressed. But it is not to be.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
[…] writer calling herself Neo-Neocon has an amusing review of “Juno.” Like me, she finds the movie painfully smug and […]
February 9th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I’ll defer to Roy Edroso, who has written about this problem with far more insight and eloquence than I could:
“They have no idea what art is. The closest thing to it in their universe is propaganda, so they assume art is just a species of that. (Sometimes they’re accidentally right, of course, but having no aesthetics, they cannot make informed judgements.) Therefore any work of art that contains something they find viscerally objectionable — in Kurtz’ case, acts of love that do not involve one man, one woman, and (it would seem) one or fewer orgasms — is analyzed and denounced as if it were a piece of legislation or a policy paper.”
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2005_12_25_archive.html#113570942715024088
“Bell seems to think that artists have a moral (and artistic!) duty to promote conservative talking points; if a director makes a film that “asks more questions than it provides answers,” he is a coward. This idea is more Soviet than American.”
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html#113616832562338963
“If he has made a political work of art, the artist may think he wants a political result, but his observers know better. Do you really think Oliver Stone made JFK because he wanted the assassination files opened? No, obviously he made it because he felt a deep soul-ache that could only be healed by mass viewing rituals in cineplexes across America.
…To [David Frum] culture is not a spring that refreshes the spirit, but a storehouse of destructive power to be used against his enemies.”
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2007_03_04_archive.html#8799765862059070677
“Doesn’t it seem as if Anderson could never even imagine a person making a work of art out of pure love of craft? When he looks at paintings, movies, novels, etc., a little meter in his head calibrates each cultural artifact’s relative usefulness in the Struggle.
Culture War, these days, apparently means war on culture.”
http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_archive.html#113094636006492462
February 9th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Some guy -
Sorry for taking you seriously, but you still can’t explain how a movie like “Little Miss Sunshine” gets roundly praised. Or “My Beautiful Laundrette”. You only think art is free of politics when it agrees with your own point of view. I watch lots of movies, and I either like them or don’t like them based mostly on their own merits. But, that’s all beside the point. You’re not really interested in seeing someone else’s point of view here.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“Little Miss Sunshine” got roundly praised because it was a sweet, though heavy-handed, little movie. It was profoundly about family - note that in every shot of the family pushing the van, they were filmed from the side, individually and isolated from each other, until the last shot of them pushing the van, which was shot through the van’s windows, so that the family members were framed by the window, together, having symbolically been brought together through their shared catharsis.
What, exactly, was objectionable about this movie?
February 9th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
This is for q2600 and his comments about postmodernism, since I am unable to leave a comment on his blog:
Oy. This is wrong on so many levels that it’s hard to find a place to start.
Well, let’s work with your misunderstanding of the term “deconstruction.” Deconstruction is an act of textual criticism - hard to define, it most basically has to do with showing that n