Most revolutionary blockbuster films?

[Dimentio]

I would claim that the most revolutionary blockbuster films are the Matrix trilogy.

E2IUxblT-uo

Why, simply because the radical gnostic view of the world as something else than we are perceiving it as. I would claim that Matrix in reality is one big inspiration for the conspiracists and zeitgeisters.

[Rakhmetov]

There is no class analysis in that film. It is purely escapist fantasy. There are some good special effects in The Matrix but there is nothing to the film. It will be a period piece of the capitalist era.

Can you imagine 100 years from now when socialism ushers in A New Golden Age how that generation will view the premise of this film???? They will think the people who participated in this film (and those who loved it) were insane.

[Dimentio]

I don't think so. For example I could enjoy old medieval chivalry tales or poems from the ancient world, even though they were produced in a very different context.

How does art in a socialist golden age look like?

[Rakhmetov]

I don't think so. For example I could enjoy old medieval chivalry tales or poems from the ancient world, even though they were produced in a very different context.

How does art in a socialist golden age look like?

Medieval chivalry tales or poems from the ancient world conveyed certain truths about the human condition. The Matrix ascribes all the ills of this world to the workings of a secret cabal engineering a computer-generated dream world.

Crazy escapist fantasies, but I must say very entertaining.---that's why it's dangerous. :thumbdown:

[Fawkes]

I've never actually seen The Matrix unfortunately.

Two movies that definitely belong on that list (whether the second is a blockbuster is debatable) are A Clockwork Orange and If...., and yes, they both star one of the best actors ever: Malcolm McDowell.

[x359594]

...Two movies that definitely belong on that list (whether the second is a blockbuster is debatable) are A Clockwork Orange and If...., and yes, they both star one of the best actors ever: Malcolm McDowell.

If was not a blockbuster though it's a fine film.

If we're talking about world cinema, then Kobayashi Masaki's Ningen no Joken (The Human Condition) definitely qualifies. It was a big hit in Japan.

I can't really think of any Hollywood blockbuster that can be called revolutionary in any political sense of the word. There have been several good movies that were blockbusters but none authentically revolutionary.

[Invader Zim]

There is no class analysis in that film. It is purely escapist fantasy. There are some good special effects in The Matrix but there is nothing to the film. It will be a period piece of the capitalist era.

Actually the film unapologeticaly and openly ripped off the likes of Jean Baudrillard (though he asserted that they got him wrong) and many others. Whether or not that you think that the production team got the ideas they were trying to articulate right is one thing, but to claim that the there is 'nothing to the film' is just plain wrong.

[Aloysius]

A Clockwork Orange is a great movie, but the latter half has always bothered me. If that is what rehabilitation is in a socialist society would look like, I'd be scared straight.

[Morgenstern]

I'm sure I'll be pounded for saying this but Fight Club had a good anti-materialism message. It did make me think about the whole rat race.

[Fawkes]

A Clockwork Orange is a great movie, but the latter half has always bothered me. If that is what rehabilitation is in a socialist society would look like, I'd be scared straight.

1. Understandably.
2. They never really make clear in either the book or movie what the existing political system is. However, he municipal flat blocks they live in are somewhat indicative of a "socialist" state, though the intentions of the rebellious intelligentsia could also resemble those against a fascist state.

[khad]

How does art in a socialist golden age look like?
Hopefully like none of the examples cited in this thread.

[Thirsty Crow]

Medieval chivalry tales or poems from the ancient world conveyed certain truths about the human condition. The Matrix ascribes all the ills of this world to the workings of a secret cabal engineering a computer-generated dream world.

Crazy escapist fantasies, but I must say very entertaining.---that's why it's dangerous. :thumbdown:
This is a severly flawed approach to works of art. Your judgement rests upon the notion that art forms such as movies must at all times be "read"/received literally.
Have you ever heard of allegory?
It can function both as a separate art form and a way of reading/interpreting art forms.
For example, the famous scene from Matrix in which Morpheus states that the world Neo sees is pulled on his eyes to prevent him from realizing the truth - that he is a slave - may be brought into relationship with the social phenomenon of ideology, which functions as a mystification in bourgeois society.

Back to the original topic: I'd definitely say that Fight Club is one of them, although the movie does not represent any kind of coherent action of what we would call a revolutionary workers' organization. But again, it is not the task of filmmakers or fiction writers to present the audience with a class analysis (thankfully, we have people who do that by other means). Or rather, it would be shortsighted to demand such a approach from these people (and when it comes to official cultural policy - it would be outright despotic to proscribe such principles; I believe that most of you will understand the historical reference).

[RED DAVE]

However, [t]he municipal flat blocks they live in are somewhat indicative of a "socialist" state[.]What about them is in the slightest bit socialist? What do you think socialism is? Some kind of a giant barracks?

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

Medieval chivalry tales or poems from the ancient world conveyed certain truths about the human condition. The Matrix ascribes all the ills of this world to the workings of a secret cabal engineering a computer-generated dream world.

Crazy escapist fantasies, but I must say very entertaining.---that's why it's dangerous. :thumbdown:

Not really. Interpreted symbolically, the Matrix could be interpreted as capitalism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Reds.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I think that Pirates of the Caribbean has some anarchism in it. A group of people go around successfully fighting the state and a monopoly. Some of it do it for money, but there's mention of freedom in being a Disney pirate. I still like it though. It takes me to fantasy land.

[L.A.P.]

Has anyone mentioned V for Vendetta yet?

[S.Artesian]

The Matrix should go without saying, at least the first one. One fairly recent "blockbuster" that was startlingly progressive was the most recent James Bond film, Quantum of Solace, in which James Bond's foe is a CIA/MI6-supported right-wing Bolivian general, who's goal is to topple the country's democratically elected government and privatize the nation's water supply.


Do us a favor.. as they say in Britain. A British secret-service agent [himself an MI-6 clow] as a revolutionary?

You want to see a British secret-service agent as a "revolutionary"-- as close as they get, and that's far, far away? Check out--

Burn!

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think "Star Wars" was the most revolutionary blockbuster. Coming at the end of the Vietnam War, the heroes are rag-tag insurgents fighting for liberation from a militarily superior empire. There are some problems - where is the Droid Liberation Army, for example - and the Rebel Alliance is clearly a National (plantary) liberation struggle with a class-collaborationist coalition - hell they even support monarchists!


Do us a favor.. as they say in Britain. A British secret-service agent [himself an MI-6 clow] as a revolutionary?

You want to see a British secret-service agent as a "revolutionary"-- as close as they get, and that's far, far away? Check out--

Burn!The old Bond movies dealt with audiences growing mistrust in the secret services by having him fight a fictional crime organization rather than the USSR (as it was in the books). That latest one is really the first to even hint that the CIA or parallel organizations do shady shit as part of their normal operations. In the past there have been corrupt "bad apples" but I think because of the "Bourne" series, the Bond producers realized they had to make Bond more of an anti-spy. That, along with attempts to at least address the rampant sexism of the series legacy, makes those movies the most progressive in the series. Not a pro-revolutionary blockbuster, but an enjoyable and interesting attempt to reinvent this cold-war character for the modern era.

"Burn!" is pretty good - though not a blockbuster.

While coming before "blockbusters", "Grapes of Wrath" was a big hit, won academy awards and has some classic scenes from the book and is still pretty moving despite 1940 style melodrama and the limitations of Hollywood movies in that era. Spolier: Rosasharron (SP?) never breast-feeds any starving migrants in the 1940 movie version. I'd love to see a contemporary re-make all in Spanish with central American migrants and set in California today. I can be done at low cost on digital video (for that cinema-veritee effect).... anyone have a couple million to invest in this movie I want to see made?:lol:

[S.Artesian]

"Burn!" is pretty good - though not a blockbuster.



It might have been before your time, but it had Brando in it. And it played pretty well. The movie is much more parallel to Viet Nam then Star Wars.

Burn! was also much more political than Star Wars, which for my money has much more in common with the Leni Riefenstahls school of cinematography than with an "left" political content. That whole mystical crap about the "force" is right out of the astrologer's handbook.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It might have been before your time, but it had Brando in it. And it played pretty well. The movie is much more parallel to Viet Nam then Star Wars.It was before my time (as was "Battle of Algiers" which is more compelling than Burn IMO) so I don't know how popular it was but my point was that I don't think that was what the OP was trying to get at. There are many left-wing films including "Salt of the Earth" but generally they have not been marketed to a broad audience like post-Star-Wars blockbusters are.

Based on content alone, yes Burn is much more political - made by Pontecorvo (who was in the Italian CP). Star Wars was not although a "Vietnam Western" was part of the idea and Lucas took ideas from early collaborations on "Apocalypse Now" - which ended up being written by a right-winger anyway... so yes, a mixed political bag for the people behind Star-Wars.


Burn! was also much more political than Star Wars, which for my money has much more in common with the Leni Riefenstahls school of cinematography than with an "left" political content.Modern advertisers frequently steal from agit-prop, constructivism, dadaism but it doesn't make the end result have a left-wing or radical effect. I don't think Riefenstahls' cinematography was "fascist" just her message and politics (though she denied it later, it's pretty apparent she wasn't confused about the content and the desired effect on the viewer).

Unlike Burn, Star Wars was a pop movie - one for kids to boot. So comparing it to overtly political movies for adults made by people with solid leftist ideological backgrounds is comparing apples and oranges.

[S.Artesian]

The OP asked about "revolutionary blockbusters." There's nothing the least bit revolutionary in the political content of Star Wars, not a single thing. The plot is not a bit different than the old Flash Gordon series. Evil emperor confronted by blond Aryan hero and his band of less-perfect allies.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Has anyone mentioned V for Vendetta yet?

The original graphic novel had some interesting themes relating to the conflict between total lack of control (anarchy) vs. total control (totalitarianism). The movie had none of that...it was the ultimate liberal view of revolution, in which "V" is no longer an anarchist at all, but rather a do-gooder with a vendetta against a fascist state. It's not really revolutionary in the sense that most of the film's action features the protagonist "propaganda of the deed"-ing all over town in what seems to be the complete absence of popular struggle against the state.

[Hexen]

There are no "revolutionary blockbusters" because all these films come from a capitalist society therefore it reflects it's ideals and it's product from it much like fairy tales is a product of feudalism.

You'll never see a film or any form of media material that will portray Marxist ideals and a post-revolutionary society accurately depicted in a capitalist society without (or metaphorically) demonizing them.

[RED DAVE]

Okay, I know I'm gonna take shit for this but:

AVATAR!

Yeah I know:

(1) The white marine saves the "natives."

(2) The "natives" are glamorous, blue-skinned primitives imbued with mystical powers.

(3) But the "natives" end up kicking ass and throwing the corporate-imperialist despoilers off their planet out!

RED DAVE

[S.Artesian]

Glorifying mystical unions with nature, actually technically manufacturing pseudo unions with nature, a sort of techno-primitivism, is not revolutionary.

It can be cool, it can be nice, it can be entertaining, but it sure as hell isn't revolutionary.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The OP asked about "revolutionary blockbusters." There's nothing the least bit revolutionary in the political content of Star Wars, not a single thing. The plot is not a bit different than the old Flash Gordon series. Evil emperor confronted by blond Aryan hero and his band of less-perfect allies.Yeah that's where it comes from just like Woodie Guthrie* based his songs on christian tunes but updated the content to reflect his experience and the world around him at that time.

I think we are arguing about two different things - there's the content and there's the context. The content of (especially the first) Star-Wars movie is not impressive when compared to the content of "serious" political movies. But Star-Wars is a post-Vietnam western/serial movie and re-framing these traditional stories around an insurgent battle right after more than a decade of war against insurgents is pretty impressive for a movie made for kids.

I hold someone like Pontecorvo or Guthrie or Ken Loach to a different political standard than movies like "Star Wars" "The Matrix" (which personally I can't stand) or "Avatar". The fact that these movies became extremely popular and were viewed by audiences we are told are "the lowest common denominator" and "apolitical" cuts against a lot of the BS we are told about how the American public thinks.

*Actually Woodie Guthrie is a bad comparison - Star Wars is more like the Beatles... using traditional pop forms but with some complexity to meet the needs of a new audience with a different view of the world.

[S.Artesian]

Have to say, we might disagree about Star Wars, but we agree about The Matrix.

But anyway, I think a strong argument could be made that Star Wars is actually reactionary-- trying to recapture that mythology of the good, hardy, independent US frontier-person, or in this case New Frontier person, battling the Evil Empire which is supposed to be a representation of the USSR.

I guess that's what makes these discussions interesting.

I also think an argument could be made for Bonnie & Clyde being both revolutionary and definitely a blockbuster-- bandits as folk heroes, in the depression etc etc.

Here's a movie I definitely consider to be revolutionary: Glory. People don't grasp it as revolutionary, maybe because of the big name stars-- but it is based on the actual history, and the arming of African-Americans-- the history of the 54th Regiment'sstruggle to win arms and the courage and dedication of Robert Gould Shaw as the commanding officer is revolutionary.

This, below, is perhaps one of the most incredible moments in all the drama of the Civil War:

Following the battle [the assault on Fort Wagner, where Shaw was killed], commanding Confederate General Johnson Hagood returned the bodies of the other Union officers who had died, but left Shaw's where it was. Hagood informed a captured Union surgeon that "had he been in command of white troops, I should have given him an honorable burial; as it is, I shall bury him in the common trench with the negroes that fell with him."[/URL] Although efforts were made to recover Shaw's body (which had been stripped and robbed prior to burial), Shaw's father publicly proclaimed that he was proud to know that his son was interred with his troops, befitting his role as a soldier and a crusader for social justice. In a letter to the regimental surgeon, Lincoln Stone, Frank Shaw wrote:
We would not have his body removed from where it lies surrounded by his brave and devoted soldiers....We can imagine no holier place than that in which he lies, among his brave and devoted followers, nor wish for him better company – what a body-guard he has![URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gould_Shaw#cite_note-2"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gould_Shaw#cite_note-1)

[Aloysius]

So...No-one has mentioned 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 yet?
Well...Whether they were blockbusters is highly debatable, but whatever.
THX-1138 (George Lucas's first major movie) was pretty revolutionary, in my opinion.