Movie Discussion Thread

I suspected you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about, but this post just erased all doubt.

Alien was actually written gender neutral. Each of the roles were interchangeable between sexes for the most part, and this was stated on the title page of the original script. This is why Ripley's gender really isn't discussed. You see, one of the basic tenants of feminism is that both sexes are equal. Alien perfectly fit that requirement because the roles were of equal value gender wise. Ripley's role as a crew officer was not a "male responsibility" in the context of Alien's future... those gender roles were clearly a non issue in the future laid out by the filmmakers and she was just helping the ship survive the long voyage of space with the payload they were in charge of. And when the alien starts picking off her crew, she steps up and takes charge... no permission given and no muscles flexed. She did what she had to in order to survive. Survival isn't gender specific.

And in Aliens, she was an observer, there to advise the marines of what they were dealing with, but thematically she was there to face her demons. None of this has anything to do with gender or being allowed some sort of male responsibility. When shit hits the fan, she is the only one (besides Hicks and Vasquez, another woman) with a head level enough to survive the situation, without denigrating the men who have lost their cool. This is indirectly promoting feminism because it supposes that bravery and leadership skills are not inherently male traits, and that anyone can assume them if they have the will power to do so.

And with the Terminator films, you continue to betray your ignorance regarding the subject. In the first Terminator, Sarah is given the tools and skills needed to survive a deadly cyborg so she can bare a child that will save humanity. Her gender is completely incidental to the story. To survive and essentially save the world, she must become less of a pushover and more of a warrior. None of Sarah's failings are gender specific... many men are pushovers and the Terminator doesn't care what gender you are. We're talking about survival, not flexing muscles and displaying testosterone. In T2, she is more aggressive, yes... but this is merely a side effect of her surviving a cyborg who could easily rip any man limb from limb, and the years of training she took on in order to teach her son, who is destined to become the legendary leader of the resistance. You don't prepare a future general by being passive, soft and weak. Again, this is not gender specific. It is a practical solution to a very dangerous problem.

Female soldiers in the military are not taking on "male responsibilities" when they enlist and serve. The problem with your attitude is that you seem to view aggression and leadership roles as distinctly male ideas, and that any woman who takes on these traits are somehow getting the approval of men to become more male-like. This is the problem with gender discrimination to begin with, as it divides responsibilities into male/female categories. This is what we've been trying to get away from since forever, and James Cameron brilliantly provided an example of how this is accomplished in his earlier films.

And then you cite Fury Road as the ideal female empowerment flick, when Furiosa basically does a more hyperbolic version of what you just criticized? And that men who can't be used for female gains are some form of cancer???

Look man, no offense, and I'm really not trying to come off as harsh, but I cannot take you seriously and continue to engage in this debate when you seem to contradict your own ideas, and when those ideas are morally repugnant (to me anyway).

PS - and I suggest you actually watch Captain Marvel before criticizing people's take on it.

 

Psalm, I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me. I love Aliens and T2. I know that in the "real world" female empowerment is mostly limited to women taking on male roles. My point original point was that the idea that a man is the authority on female empowerment is laughable. And while I acknowledge that James Cameron was the first filmmaker I encountered that created empowered women characters, in the scheme of things, those women are examples of empowerment that is designed to appeal to, and not discomfort men. It sells and makes for great entertainment, but other more radical forms of empowerment are possible, if not commercially viable.

 

Don't be mad because I pointed out your "I hear it from blacks" comment. What's up with that? And what's up with that avatar? Anyway, here goes:

I'm not sure why you're bringing up Alien, since it's not a James Cameron film and I didn't mention it.

Thank you for summarizing the plot of Aliens for me. None of what you said responds to my point, which was that Ripley may be an empowered character, but it is a vanilla form of empowerment that goes down easy. Groundbreaking for the time, but the sort of empowerment that goes down easy, hence the critical and commercial acclaim.

I didn't say that Sarah's failings are gender specific or that her actions in T2 are not consistent with the story, theme, etc. I said that in T2, Sarah Connor transforms herself into a tactical prepper action figure caricature of male violence and aggression. Like Ripley, she may be empowered, but it's easy drinkin' empowerment.

You're weaving together a lot of arguments here against things I didn't say, but I'll try to sort through this. First, the modern military is an institution designed by men, controlled by men, and was the exclusive purview of men until not too long ago. Given that that is the case, I don't see how you can argue that women who serve are not taking on what have been traditionally male responsibilities.

Leaving all that aside, I wasn't talking about "any woman who takes on these traits." I was talking about Ripley in Aliens, who at every point in the movie has to continually convince men to believe what she is saying and let her do shit she is ready, willing, and able to do. That's what I mean when I say she gains power with the approval of men. My point still stands: she is an empowered character, but that empowerment is easy to swallow because men give it to her.

I didn't say it was the ideal empowerment flick. I said it was a more genuine form of empowerment than what Cameron serves up.

And yes: in the context of the movie, Furiosa, the mothers and the other women characters have no use for men, who are responsible for the fucked up state of the world and a cancer on it. I never said that's what I believe. I said that's what they believe, which is obvious if you watch the film.

I don't see how what I'm saying is contradictory. And I didn't criticize anyone's take on Captain Marvel. I said that calling a man the authority on female empowerment is ridiculous and was responding to your examples.

 

The problem with debates like this is the other person likes to move goal posts and build strawmen, so you have to waste alot of time digging through their previous posts to point out where they're slipping up. And then the walls of text of back and forth get bigger and bigger until you've forgotten what you're debating in the first place.

This style of internet discourse started boring me years ago, so I generally don't get involved anymore. I just don't have the time. So I'll just leave what I said where it is because it's enough.

 

Never heard of this film--would love to see it. Always preferred psychological horror (and its blood brother, horror of the unconscious/psyche) to the regular kind.

 

Sorry to break into the long line of quasi-flame posts here, but right now the only film that really interests me is Jordan Peele's US. Hope to see that this week.

 

Boops, Coltmrfire, you both have a point. You ever consider that movies tie us to a time and place, much like music? Art interpretation? Just pointing that out because you both have a point...that being said...I agree with ColtMrfire 100% from my perspective. I vividly remember T2, I was 11 years old and left whatever movie my mother and sister where watching to sneak into T2 and Sarah Connor. My first R rated movie in the theater!

My point is that we teach prejudice, even if we are good enough to try and avoid it. But kids man! I did not see someone pushing an agenda, I just saw Sarah Conner. Years later in a film class they pointed out Aliens and that made sense due to my experience, but until that, strictly due to timming, in film I just thought a badass was a badass despite labels.

Shit, I honestly think as adults we over analyze things and intentionally point it out to our kids in an attempt to bond with them. Can’t a badass be a badass, race or gender be damned(which would make us all better because we aren’t looking at either)

 

Thanks @eastboundofnowhere

Anyway I saw US.

I liked it quite a bit but there was something vaguely unsatisfying about it. It took me a few days to figure it out.

I feel there was far too much exposition in the movie. Horror generally benefits from being ambiguous, and I feel the world Peele created should've been left more vague. Instead you have the bad girl being Irving the Explainer for large chunks of the film and it just deflated the tension, and also raised far too many questions that made the world seem more confusing than fleshed out.

 

Kinda wish I hadn't read that! No matter, I'll still see it. Missed GET OUT (a mistake) and don't plan to miss this. I'm a big Lupita Nyong'o fan, need to see any project of hers.

Besides, if Jordan Peele turns out to be the next Hitchcock or John Frankenheimer, working quietly among us, doing better & better work--I gotta get in on these initial films.

 

Speaking of John Frankenheimer, let's give some love for this great director, no longer with us.

My favorites of his films are THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, SECONDS (underappreciated, unique film w/terrific work by Rock Hudson), and one of his final films, RONIN (which I've seen easily a dozen and a half times and would watch again right now).

 

Watched Reindeer Games (one of his final films) a couple weeks ago. Frankenheimer had it all the way till the very end.

Michael Bay is rumored to be his illegitimate son. The resemblance is striking.

 

I'd forgotten about REINDEER GAMES. Not a great film, but a very entertaining one.

...which reminds me of a perplexing actor IMO, Gary Sinese:

• In his pre-2000 film work, I found him to be one of the smartest, most skillful character actors around. A high-level technical actor
• He's also a legit theater heavyweight, co-creator of Chicago's Steppenwolf Theater Company, which did major productions in Chicago & New York
• His early film work was noteworthy, with big roles in OF MICE AND MEN, THE STAND, FORREST GUMP
• He played the bad guy very effectively in films like SNAKE EYES, RANSOM, and REINDEER GAMES. I thought he was rather scary in RANSOM--one of the better portrayals of a criminal sociopath sround
• Then he took a swerve into TV work, little of which IMO equalled his film work

What happened to this guy? He really should be doing 1-2 movies a year.

 

Totally agreed about Sinese. Fantastic actor. His Ransom bad guy was extremely effective.

What happened to him is what happened to alot of 80s 90s stars. The industry stopped making alot of the mid-budget movies actors like Sinese relied on, in favor of big budget tentpole franchise stuff. So people like Sinese, James Spader, Vincent D'nofrio, etc get relegated to television. Not even good TV like Breaking Bad or Mad Men, but network TV garbage. It's a shame really but those beachfront mansions aren't going to pay for themselves.

 

Damn, you're totally right. The 3 actors you name are all top-shelf character actors, technically very accomplished. If there were in their late 20's/early 30's, their "TV" career would be in big-budget original series on Netflix or Amazon Prime. But when they got going in TV, it as all network TV. The really good stuff on AMC & FX Channel came somewhat later.

 

Phools drive people like psalm with likes also... Like the Monty Python humor. Guiltless pleasure.

Editing my rant. Maybe not fools, but foolish/childish anyway.

 

A few things are working against them, first is their age (though it’s way less of an issue for men than it is for women), the increased competition introduced from globalization and the desire for more diverse casts (these shows and movies aren’t just shown for American audiences anymore), and their earlier success kind of pricing them out of that market since big budget tv shows have generally put that money into production instead of big name (or even widely known) actors.

 

Watched I Am Legend last night. I saw it upon initial release years ago. I still feel like it was potentially a very good movie hampered by Will Smith. He can be a good actor when called for (and I think he did a good job reigning in his "Big Willie" persona), but I don't think he had the chops or more importantly the gravitas needed for that role. The last man in New York needed someone better.

And the CGI vampires were god awful. Totally lacking in believability.

 

I have to agree with your comments. Will Smith is immensely likable & charismatic, but he really needs people to bounce his vibe off of (not present in IAL). The dog was also quite likable, but he has no lines.

But IMO the larger issue is how superior the book is to the film. That's often the case--a full length novel or novella can stretch out plot, character, setting, pace & mood w/precision & care, whereas the film often feels rushed/edited by comparison. But really good films use various scriptwriting tricks (visual vs textual story-telling) + careful editing to reduce the gap. The film really doesn't have that level of polish...

It's too bad, because that's likely the only shot the book will get to become a film--and it's truly one of the seminal pieces of vampire fiction.

 

Yes the book is excellent.

I read the original Mark Protosevich draft of the script in high school back in the 90s when it was floating around online, back when Schwarzenegger was supposed to play the title role. That script was far far superior to the movie we got and was much closer to the book . The vampires could actually speak and had personalities and there was a definite head vampire bad guy that was well written. And it was much more of a Neville vs vampires game of cat and mouse going on throughout...

The movie totally destroyed anything good the book or Protosevich draft had to offer. And the vampires became typical mindless horror movie stereotypes that I'm sure Hollywood execs were more comfortable with. Their tendency is to stupi-fy scripts as much as possible to appeal to the broadest audience possible. But a movie made for everyone is a movie made for no one... As it's too bland to stand out.