Books/films you hated because of your beliefs

[TheBigREDOne]

Are there any films or books you hated on the sole basis, that it was reactionary?
This means any film with a conservative viewpoint, or one that glorifys bourgeois life.

Alternatively are there any films or books you liked, despite it being reactionary?

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

Anything that glorifies imperial interventionism.

Also: "Atlas shrugged", do I have to explain this? :laugh: Haven't even read it but I know I'll despise it so why bother?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ha, good one.

Yeah I really don't expect radical politics to be reflected in most literature and films; there are things I think are fantastic works but I disagree with the overt or subtextual assumptions and politics strongly... sometimes this makes them even more affecting and interesting as a reader/viewer. But sometimes the political assumptions (often when just portrayed as neutral or "common sense") are either too obtrusive that it distracts from any other qualities, or the political ideas are too clumsy and destroy belivability (this also happens with movies with politics I might generally agree with).

So for the first category I would put the movie "Crash" - not the car-sex one, the one that was all these supposedly insightful stories about people in LA. I thought that it was banal and pretensious and the political assumptions were those of basically privillaged yuppie white people "Oh, the Latino charater ISN'T a car-thief... wow, mind-blown! I feel so divirisfied now!"

For the second category, I would put an obvious choice: Atlas Shrugged. I read maybe 100 pages of it, but even as I got further in I couldn't shake the opening where the character talks about how oppressive and alienating having a clock projected into the sky telling people what time it is, was. I just kept thinking... the author left Russia, and a common clock was her view of oppression? This in the same era where taylorism was setting every human movement in labor to a time-clock during production... and her fear is that we'll all just become lazy because when we want to know what time it is we look at a clock-face projected into the sky!!!!!!! Sorry, but a cage strapped to your face with a rat inside is a much more chilling dytopia, Rand.

I also hated the misanthropy and moralism of Lord of the Flies.

[Atsumari]

If I was more devoted to my beliefs, I would probably really have it out for Dostoyevsky. The guy is a conservative Slavophile and dogmatic Christian who is critical of atheism and revolutionary leftists.
I also love Murakami to death despite his anti-communism and his holier than thou approach to politics.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Dostoevsky is an interesting case - it was probably not his attention, but his "good" characters tend to be saintly, boring pricks, while his evil leftist characters are at least human. If I lived surrounded by the kind of people Shigalev was apparently surrounded by, I would advocate mass murder as well.

[Nakidana]

Well, I can usually enjoy a movie even though it has reactionary elements in it. I just get annoyed by the liberal bullshit more than anything else. Shit, I even went to see transformers 2 with a friend just for the heck of it (movie was terrible, like 2½ hours of watching paint dry while getting hit on the head with a frying pan).

"Hate" I would only reserve for the most reactionary pile of dung, where I can hardly restrain myself from punching the screen. Off the top of my head 300 is one such case. I refuse to watch it and would probably leave the room if it was playing.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Dostoevsky is an interesting case - it was probably not his attention, but his "good" characters tend to be saintly, boring pricks, while his evil leftist characters are at least human. If I lived surrounded by the kind of people Shigalev was apparently surrounded by, I would advocate mass murder as well.

Yeah! I read what's apparently his most political novel, "Devils/The Possessed" some weeks ago, and just kept laughing my ass off at half of the things that Stavrogin did to offend the sensibilities of Czarist Russia. :grin:

Kirillov's views on suicide stood out as, um, provocative as well.

[The Intransigent Faction]

As for reactionary books/films, well, Ayn Rand has been mentioned already.
Also, having Gulag: A History pushed on me forced me to reevaluate some things, even though Anne Applebaum is a prick who may have said some right things for the wrong reasons, if that counts.

Aldous Huxley, from what I know of him, was hardly a revolutionary, but I absolutely love Brave New World.

Maybe I'll add Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France as well, as one I hated.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I have a special little hate for Atlas Shrugged.

Why?

Because I've actually read the whole book, cover to cover.

Twice.

And it was just as shit the second time as it was the first. It is the equivalent of Ed Wood trying to write the great American novel.

And the writing is awful. I don't mean awful in an insipid Stephenie Meyer way, I mean awful in a stilted, dry, humorless way...like the worst kind of dry academic literature, only fiction.

It also doesn't help that all of the Randroids somehow take criticism of Rand's prose as some kind of deep moral offense on par with murder (and charity).

[Redistribute the Rep]

I liked Crime and Punishment, even though Dostoyevsky was reactionary and bashed nihilism.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I have a special little hate for Atlas Shrugged.

Why?

Because I've actually read the whole book, cover to cover.

Twice.

And it was just as shit the second time as it was the first. It is the equivalent of Ed Wood trying to write the great American novel.

And the writing is awful. I don't mean awful in an insipid Stephenie Meyer way, I mean awful in a stilted, dry, humorless way...like the worst kind of dry academic literature, only fiction.

It also doesn't help that all of the Randroids somehow take criticism of Rand's prose as some kind of deep moral offense on par with murder (and charity).

Wow. I keep picking it up and never finishing, but figure I'm not missing much.

Spoiler: John Galt is an archetypal arrogant reactionary prick.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Man when you read the idiot and dostoevsky starts to use myshkin as his mouthpiece you feel exactly like the characters surrounding him.
but for all political qualms with dostoevsky one cannot deny the quality of his stories
i mean fuck i'll take dostoevsky over most "proletarian" literature i've read, at least i can't guess his endings.

[Ele'ill]

I don't like a lot of apocalyptic/crisis books/films. I've tried to get into Dies The Fire (first book in a series) by some localish author/major best seller etc... and I just find the character actions to be ridiculous. Suddenly people band together to do absurd things for no reason at all. That type of thing bothers me.

[slum]

there's plenty of books/movies/etc that have politics so vile i just can't stick it out, but most of those tend to suck from a literary standpoint anyway.

i'm also in the "i love dostoyevsky but kind of wish i didn't" crowd. see also: schopenhauer, neitzsche, the roman stoics, goethe, aeschylus, t.s. eliot.

[adipocere]

I love Dan Simmons's books but you can tell his politics are shit - it oozes into his otherwise exceptional writing. He deeply hates communists and is obviously a stealth racist. In fact, communism occasionally figures into the villainy or degeneracy of his antagonists and with it racial overtones. In the book Hyperion, the eventual racial degeneration and sub-humanization of one group in his story is predicated by its communist ideology. Another book, Song of Kali which is something of a racist tour de force (in that it requires a heavy dose of xenophobia and hatred of the poor to hinge the plot) the primary villain is a violent murdering thug who becomes a communist because it compliments his wicked nature. It's still a really good book. So Dan Simmons is obviously a giant reactionary asshole and I still read his books because he's mostly a really good writer.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Hard Candy

Tedious right-wing revenge fantasy about cutting perverts bits off and enjoying their deaths

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Batman. Fucking asshole.

[Per Levy]

honor harrington, i only read 2 books but its enough to very much dislike it, its military sci-fi and it is at least good at that part, the problem is that the military action only makes like 1 third of each novel, or even less.

first the good: the space battles are fantastic, really gripping, realistic and full of suspense. the universe is quite interesting and that is pretty much it.

the bad: honor harrington, who is a mix of jesus and napoleon(heck the universe is named after her), she is good at everything(except math), the 2 dimensiol level of the characters, i mean everyone who is not sucking up to harrington is a baddie or a slimy civilian, and all those who "love", "adore", and respect harrington just become a giant blurry mass of sycophants and mostly all military types are good people except those politicians. and in the end, the only reason why harrington is potrait as a mixed race woman is that otherwise it would read like a conservative/libertarian male fantasy and it is.
that aside, the kingdom of manticore(wich harrington is the champion of) is a capitalist wet dream, post-racism, post-sexism, a trading capitalist society with a democratic kingdom, well the queen/king doesnt get democratic elected but the rest. the rich familys of the colony could buy themselfs aristocratic titles. manitcore is not imperialist despite the fact that it is styled after the 19th century united kingdom and an idealist version of modern usa. lower classes arnt mention.
lower classes are only mentioned when it comes to haven, the bad guys, modeld after revolutionary france and the late soviet union. there the lower classes are usually called "mob" and "plebs" and haven is bad because it has a welfare state and because of that it has to go to war all the time to fuel the economy with the money of other star empires. yeah that is suppose to be a critique of the modern usa as well.

dumb stuff and even worse, all the suspense goes to waste since you know, jesus harrington will always win, the universe is named after her after all, she is like the ultimate mary sue.

[Tenka]

Dances with Smurfs, a.k.a., Avatar, is a stinking pile of biodegradable matter. I know this without having to watch it, because of my prejudices regarding humanoid aliens and eco-love messages.

[Hrafn]

Dances with Smurfs, a.k.a., Avatar, is a stinking pile of biodegradable matter. I know this without having to watch it, because of my prejudices regarding humanoid aliens and eco-love messages.

I always tend to turn into what I oppose when watching movies like that. I become some type of neo-Imperialist, ultra-militarist, human supremacist, cheering on for our champions fighting the xeno scum

[Remus Bleys]

Avatar was so bad. Even from an aesthetic view it was displeasing, don't know why it got so fucking popular.
Anyway I don't read books I don't like. Life is short etc. Most of the stuff though I don't read "politically" anyway, I don't know why people torture themselves like that when it comes to literature.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I actually like the sort of bullshit overt reactionary nonsense that you get spewed out by Hollywood: The Expendables, Captain America etc. They're just fucking hilarious. Every time there's a shot of an American flag waving in a soft wind, I laugh.

I get far more annoyed with that layer of 'acceptable' films that are more insidiously bullshit like The Help, Elysium etc. I think they just miss the point entirely and are just there to make people pat themselves on the back as if they've helped an old lady across the street.

[Queen Mab]

Dostoevsky is a brilliant writer. I just roll my eyes and skip over the angry author tracts against nihilist atheists if it gets too much.

Forrest Gump is a film I hated because of its reactionary message.

[Sinister Intents]

Dostoevsky is a brilliant writer. I just roll my eyes and skip over the angry author tracts against nihilist atheists if it gets too much.

Forrest Gump is a film I hated because of its reactionary message.

I've only seen Forrest Gump twice, what's the message? I hated it...

[Nakidana]

I've only seen Forrest Gump twice, what's the message? I hated it...

Life is a box of chocolates? :laugh:

This is gonna get me banned but I kinda enjoyed Dances with Wolves. :wub:

[Ele'ill]

Dances with Smurfs, a.k.a., Avatar, is a stinking pile of biodegradable matter. I know this without having to watch it, because of my prejudices regarding humanoid aliens and eco-love messages.

eywa has heard you

[motion denied]

Dostoevsky is a brilliant writer. I just roll my eyes and skip over the angry author tracts against nihilist atheists if it gets too much.

Forrest Gump is a film I hated because of its reactionary message.

How can you hate Forrest Gump

[Os Cangaceiros]

Forrest Gump the conformist succeeds while Jenny the free spirit succumbs to a disastrous life of addiction and HIV

I mean some of the moments in the film still get me (like Bubba dying, or "Lt. Dan, you got new legs!") but I get why some people wouldn't like it.

[Delusional Kid]

The Dark Knight Rises... I think everyone here knows what sucks about that one.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Forrest Gump the conformist succeeds while Jenny the free spirit succumbs to a disastrous life of addiction and HIV

I mean some of the moments in the film still get me (like Bubba dying, or "Lt. Dan, you got new legs!") but I get why some people wouldn't like it.

Yeah I'd include this movie in my "hate due to political perspective" category. I mean it's also saccrine as fuck - so I don't know if I would like it much better if the subtext was different.

Yeah I hated this movie politically before I was even political. Float through life like a feather and everything will turn out as the best of possible worlds. Struggle and you're just going to destroy yourself. It's boomers litterally re-writing (you know the stupid film-footage gimmik) the vietnam era from the perspective of a happy-go-lucky white southerner.:confused:

Life is like a box of chocolates... unless you're black then it's a box full of various kinds of turds.

[Jimmie Higgins]

People rave about "Breaking Bad" but I honestly tried and couldn't get into it mostly because I got creeped out by the suburban angry white man taming the various ethnic minority drug "savages" aspect. "The Walking Dead" on the other hand creates all sorts of tensions for me as a viewer (white southern sheriff trying repeatedly to establish 'civilization' in a world gone 'savage') but somehow it works maybe because the western tropes get subverted and the villians have become like dopplegangers for the protagonist: in other words bad (mysoginistic, dominiating, dictatorial) civilizing sherrifs. Still waiting for a female-led group of zombie surviors though... it took 10 years for that to sorta begin to happen in the comicsmaggie leads one of the little towns in the comics now... but they haven't really developed it..


;2744524']The Dark Knight Rises... I think everyone here knows what sucks about that one.

Yeah, the politics of all three were pretty bad in my opinion. Except for the generic terrorism thing - and the whole central concept of billionarie keynsian vigillentes "restoring order" from the inevitable "choas" of the masses - the first one wasn't bad politically... at least not obtrusivly. But reviewers didn't misinterpret this one, it was basically seen as a stylish remake.

The second and third pissed me off and part of it was the apolitical use of political themes. The director said in an interview that he isn't making any political statement in these movies, but adding real-life issues heightens the drama and tension and adds realism. This makes the movie just suspect to me, it gets my manipulation spidey-sense going. Reviws treated the movie as a "serious" movie rather than a genre movie which also pissed me off because it's really just a genre movie with non-standard genre aestetic and the percieved "depth" of the story was just run of the mill cynacism.

But at any rate, the 2nd one had some excellent set-pieces (joker bank heist/car-chase with the police caravan) and the performance of the Joker in that one makes it worth watching despite other issues I have with it. The third one I don't like mostly because it was bad.

[mindsword]

the dark knight
practically every american war movie (except apocalypse now!, that shit was classic)

[mindsword]

forrest gump rocked, nobody can hate that

he was a retard, how the fuck can he be a conformist :grin:

[GiantMonkeyMan]

forrest gump rocked, nobody can hate that

he was a retard, how the fuck can he be a conformist :grin:
Terms like 'retard' are considered derogatory and are not allowed on this forum. It's considered an insult to a whole range of people with mental and physical health difficulties. I know you're a new member and perhaps weren't aware of the specific rules or the revolutionary principles that underpin these rules and I'm not a mod so have no official power to warn you but take this as a piece of comradely advice for future posting.

[The Intransigent Faction]

the dark knight
practically every american war movie (except apocalypse now!, that shit was classic)



Oh yeah! "Charlie Wilson's War" comes to mind, for example.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

I'm sorry, I still don't see how Forrest Gump was supposed to send some kind of political message. It was a movie, not everything has to have a political undertone pulled out of it.

[Red Commissar]

I had liked Terry Goodkind's first book, Wizard's First Rule, in his overlong series Sword of Truth, but sometime after the third book he started jamming a lot more obvious points from his objectivist viewpoints to the point it got nauseating. I stopped reading the series after the fourth book; to give you an idea he opens his fifth book "The Pillars of Creation" by dedicating to the intelligence community who he bemoans how they've been vilified JACKALS OF EVIL (MEDIA AND LEFTWINGERS). In another book, Naked Empire, the plot involves a group of people who're pacifistic to a fault in that they won't defend themselves from a belligerent power. It's a lame strawman on anti-war sentiment.

It goes both ways. I read Star Faction because of my views, and found it a dense and difficult book to go through that paid off only towards the end for me. The second book in that series though, The Stone Canal, I enjoyed much more. Likewise, I enjoyed the Iron Heel but it's more a guilty pleasure for me, it's not one of Jack London's stronger works and his racism seeps through in that one (overwhelmingly blacks are relegated to lumpen and strikebreakers).

In movies I'm still bugged by the way Bane and his little "revolution" was shown in The Dark Knight Rises, though most of my issues with that movie come more from how the pacing feels all weird and the plot not really all that well structured.

The following so much a political qualm as it is just a matter of taste. I used to read a lot of sci-fi, but I've gotten exhausted from the over-saturation of dystopias, cyberpunks, and what not in the genre. It just seems to be beating a dead horse right now, some authors focus too much in the worldbuilding to make the most nutty dystopia without putting much thought elsewhere.

I've found myself reading comics differently now, especially superhero stuff. Some batman bits from the 90s were pretty laughably black and white when it came to crime, but I guess that is to be expected. That said I think some of the recent Batman stuff is pretty cool, Scott Snyder has done a good job there. The only guy in comics whose politics I couldn't really handle was Steve Ditko- he did a good job drawing but when it came to writing comics it was a lot of facepalm. His ultraviolent heroes were informed by his objectivist views, these being Mr. A and his more sanitized successor The Question as well as Batman. This inspired Rorschach in Watchmen to expose and subvert those views (as was the point of the rest of Watchmen for the superhero genre in general), though Rorschach did end up becoming arguably the most popular in that comic. I suppose that's a weird thing about that book in general since none of these characters were really meant to be admirable.

Beyond that I haven't really come any books that I put down because my personal views clashed with it too much. There are obvious ones, mostly religious wank or off the rail politics, but those I stay away with to begin with. Movies and books that fall in to those two categories don't generally spin a good yarn, they mostly come off more as massive persecution complexes and do not really present a compelling story, interesting characters, etc.

What I notice is different from my political views is I have an additional filter through which I interpret what I read and watch. That wasn't there when I didn't have very developed politics when I was younger, rewatching and rereading some stuff I've done before has been an interesting experience, almost like doing it for the first time.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm sorry, I still don't see how Forrest Gump was supposed to send some kind of political message. It was a movie, not everything has to have a political undertone pulled out of it.Well I think there are various ways (and levels) to evaluate a movie and I think every movie has a political context or view even if it's not really the point of the movie or even consious by the film-makers.

Just enjoyment of a movie or book or whatnot is more or less subjective: did I enjoy the experience, for example. Then there's a way to look at something on the basis of if it works in a creative context: does the movie do what it sets out to do effectivly - if it's a romance, does the chemestry work, if it's a comedy is it funny, are action scence suspenceful and exciting, etc. Then there's also the political context which could be the overt message or POV of the people making it, or more generally the ideological assumptions and social context. For example, why did slasher movies become a genre trend in the US at a time when both brutality of US war in Vietnam was in the front of the popular consiousness and when blue collar jobs were being spead up... do people feel more like meat in this context, is that why we are particularly fascinated/scared of bodily gore at that time in culture when bodies are being thrown into inhuman production methods and violent wars?

But none of these things need to be synched up: a movie might be enjoyable but not work technically (I love strange fuck-up movies and b-movies because they sometimes are just exciting because they aren't slick and homoginized). A movie might work tecnically but not be of interest to someone subjectivly. A movie might have a consious political point, but this is at odds with a deeper political context of the movie, etc.

I think people of any political view have a tendency to conflate these things and crudly dennounce movies or glorify bad movies that they agree with politically. Revolutionaries need to do a better job of seperating out a political view of a film from a more cinematic or personal view of a film. I think it's interesting to look at the politics of films but I also don't want to come off like I'm judging someone who likes a movie if I think that the movie has some bad politics. For example, I love Indiana Jones movies (the odd numberd ones anyway), but I think there's pleanty to criticize about them from a political standpoint - it doesn't mean it's not fun and exciting to watch. Or, I really enjoy some David Lynch movies but his politics are conservative, misanthropic, and this view comes across in the themes of the movies.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I couldn't really handle was Steve Ditko- he did a good job drawing but when it came to writing comics it was a lot of facepalm.I've read that he and Stan Lee fought over Spiderman due to Ditko and Lee's differnet viewpoints. Lee wanted Peter Parker to be a modest populist everyman whereas Ditko wanted Parker to be a genious held back by all the small-minded (working class) people around him. The result is a populist everykid who deals with mean bosses, money problems, relationship and time-management problems but is also a scientific genious (but they usually don't mention that about him much unless it serves some plot).

[Chris]

I wouldn't say I hate it, but the political aspects are the main criticism I have of Gymnaslærer Pedersen (High School Teacher Pedersen), which is a bit odd in that it was the film that eventually (through quite a few hoops) made me a communist.

Essentially, the film is a dark comedy about the Worker's Communist Party in Norway (a Maoist party), set in my own home-town (the main reason I originally saw it; I knew a lot of people who were extras). Largely, it portrays the members as intelligentsia with zero understanding and backing of the working class (with the exception of the one working-class character depicted in the film, who was portrayed as a bit of a thuggish party cadre), and painfully naïve towards things like Cambodia and Mao's China. The film spirals down into depression and disillusion among many of the characters of the film, including the suicide of one of the main characters (Scandinavian comedies; fun for the whole family). The film is based on a book by a former member of said party, so it is a quite accurate portrayal of the maoists in Norway, but the political bent was quite overt.

Although, I like the movie in a way, as it humanized communists to a great deal for me (despite its negative portrayal), and I became interested in reading up on communism itself and asking around for a bit of family history (I come from a working class family, and several older family members were communists). The political bent is still annoying when I watch it, and its the primary way younger people know of communism in Norway (at least in my home-town, its not as well-known outside of it, and the non-Maoist communists, who are largely working-class, are virtually unheard of in the south). Although, I find it amusing an anti-communist film managed to make some communists.


Of other films and books, I rarely care much about political over/undertones. I'm a fan of some fairly jingoistic American films (such as any and all action flicks made during the 80s), and I don't read that many books in the first place.

[Chris]

I wouldn't say I hate it, but the political aspects are the main criticism I have of Gymnaslærer Pedersen (High School Teacher Pedersen), which is a bit odd in that it was the film that eventually (through quite a few hoops) made me a communist.

Essentially, the film is a dark comedy about the Worker's Communist Party in Norway (a Maoist party), set in my own home-town (the main reason I originally saw it; I knew a lot of people who were extras). Largely, it portrays the members as intelligentsia with zero understanding and backing of the working class (with the exception of the one working-class character depicted in the film, who was portrayed as a bit of a thuggish party cadre), and painfully naïve towards things like Cambodia and Mao's China. The film spirals down into depression and disillusion among many of the characters of the film, including the suicide of one of the main characters (Scandinavian comedies; fun for the whole family). The film is based on a book by a former member of said party, so it is a quite accurate portrayal of the maoists in Norway, but the political bent was quite overt.

Although, I like the movie in a way, as it humanized communists to a great deal for me (despite its negative portrayal), and I became interested in reading up on communism itself and asking around for a bit of family history (I come from a working class family, and several older family members were communists). The political bent is still annoying when I watch it, and its the primary way younger people know of communism in Norway (at least in my home-town, its not as well-known outside of it, and the non-Maoist communists, who are largely working-class, are virtually unheard of in the south). Although, I find it amusing an anti-communist film managed to make some communists.


Of other films and books, I rarely care much about political over/undertones. I'm a fan of some fairly jingoistic American films (such as any and all action flicks made during the 80s), and I don't read that many books in the first place. I did dislike how Avatar made me cheer for the imperialist racists, though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I totally understand not liking avatar on a number of levels... but rooting for the colonists just to spite the film?:lol:

[Smash Monogamy]

24. I don't think I have to explain this one.

I also usually hate films that promote vigilante justice, torture, revenge, police brutality and treating criminals as subhumans.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Pretty much anything having to do with John Wayne.

I honestly don't understand why he was so popular to begin with. He was an average actor, at best. Every time he took over as director he put out a turd, and you need only read an interview to find out that he was a massive asshole in his private life.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Pretty much anything having to do with John Wayne.

I honestly don't understand why he was so popular to begin with. He was an average actor, at best. Every time he took over as director he put out a turd, and you need only read an interview to find out that he was a massive asshole in his private life.
This a million times. I fucking hate John Wayne. Every film he's in is shite due to his presence.

[exeexe]

Independence day
Ok the movie was good but there is so much thick nationalism in it that you could cut through it with a knife

[The Jay]

I watched The Wolf of Wall Street and liked it, except I hoped that the guy died at the end.

[fugazi]

I also love Murakami to death despite his anti-communism and his holier than thou approach to politics.

Ryu or Haruki? (I like both of their works)

[fugazi]

Oh and to respond to the original topic
The Blind Side and Apocalypto - both of which were already bad as films

I mean I know that the blind side is like trying like really hard - but the way that film approaches race relations man...

and Apocalypto was just openly racist. like astonishingly racist.

oh and you know what else,
The Secret.

because the overall message of that film can be read as if you are a victim of racism, sexism, systematic oppression, warfare, genocide etc. then it is your fault for just thinking about things negatively

[Sabot Cat]

oh and you know what else,
The Secret.

because the overall message of that film can be read as if you are a victim of racism, sexism, systematic oppression, warfare, genocide etc. then it is your fault for just thinking about things negatively

Additionally: if you happen to be incredibly lucky in your health and socioeconomic status, it's because of your positive thinking! You earned that privilege! :rolleyes:

[Queen Mab]

This might be controversial, but 1984.

(not a Stalinist)

[Max]

Whenever I am reading or watching a movie, I try to not let my beliefs interfere with wether I like the movie or not. Now, atlas shrugged was the one movie that I could not stope my beliefs from interfering. It was awful.

[TheBigREDOne]

Additionally: if you happen to be incredibly lucky in your health and socioeconomic status, it's because of your positive thinking! You earned that privilege! :rolleyes:

Lol, I didn't even know this film existed, thnx I love hunting down crappy movies.

[fugazi]

Whenever I am reading or watching a movie, I try to not let my beliefs interfere with wether I like the movie or not. Now, atlas shrugged was the one movie that I could not stope my beliefs from interfering. It was awful.

i just wikipedia'd that,
damn i forgot how insane that book was

i was kinda into the world when i first read it...
decopunk -

[exeexe]

I just watched snowpiercer, long in to the movie i thought it was good but the ending ruined it all. Basically the message you would get from the movie is that even if you successfully carried out a violent revolution then in the end you cant change anything.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This might be controversial, but 1984.

(not a Stalinist)

1984 is overwritten tripe and commits the cardinal sin of having the Trotsky analogue spout Burnham-type nonsense about "oligarchic collectivism" (oh, Eric changed one word, how clever).

"Brave New World" is just hilarious in how, apart from the caste system, which Huxley as a supporter of capitalism had no real right to complain about, it pretty much describes an alright society. A good society, even.

[Ainu Itak]

The Bible.

[Nakidana]

I just watched snowpiercer, long in to the movie i thought it was good but the ending ruined it all. Basically the message you would get from the movie is that even if you successfully carried out a violent revolution then in the end you cant change anything.

How do you come to that conclusion? I interpreted the train going around in circles as human society going through an endless loop of revolutions and counter-revolutions followed by oppression. But at the end the train was derailed, so obviously it was a new beginning, a different kind of society.

Of course you could argue that the new beginning was much worse than the old oppressive society, considering how, with the destruction of the technologically advanced train, they had basically reverted to primitivism.

[Red Economist]

I generally avoid war films (as it's either propaganda or too realistic and both are horrible) and apocalyptic films (because the human race decends into a brutal hobbeian state of nature known as 'anarchy' and spending two and half hours watching people be complete assholes to each other over who gets to eat someone elses leg is not entertaining).

Though I enjoyed watching U-571 because I found Matthew McConaughey's character interesting and sympathetic and the same goes for Denzel Washington in The Book of Eli.

[BolshevikBabe]

Requiem for a Dream came off to me as obnoxiously preachy and moralistic about drug use, and basically felt like a DARE ad if it were directed by David Lynch.

The Right have also ruined any chance of me ever enjoying Animal Farm or 1984 on any level ever again (I enjoyed them as pieces of writing before, even if they should never ever be taken seriously as political pieces)

[exeexe]

How do you come to that conclusion?
They fight themselves all the way to the front of the train and has the opportunity to take control of the train and divide the labour that would be required in to shifts. They could have held meetings where all the secrets that was hidden away were to be revealed to the general public so everyone could participate in the meetings and agree to distribute the workload equally so that the train could carry on without any unfairness..

Instead the movie tells there is only two solutions. Either one man will take and control the train (fascism) and thus control everyone else or you blow up the train and pray that someone will survive (end of civilization).

[exeexe]

I interpreted the train going around in circles as human society going through an endless loop of revolutions and counter-revolutions followed by oppression
Nah the train is just running and keeps running around the continents until its safe to go outside. And we are told that we can see more and more of the airplane that is lying under the brigde so we know that that day will come in a distant future where you can go outside.

The reason why there is uprisings is because they need to limit the amount of people aboard the train. There was only one revolution on the train in its 18 years of running and that was the one you saw in the movie. Where the power is changed to someone else. Because that is a revolution. If you dont change the power its just an uprising.

And it was meant to be an uprising. Thats why the guards didnt have bullets. If they didnt want there be uprisings you would have given those guards bullets, and we know the train had bullets, we see that later in the movie.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

Movie or book I hated?

Gone with the Wind. Not one empathetic character in the whole movie. Somehow, they even made the slaves annoying. Rhet Butler? Rapist. And did everyone get that the little get-together after the war was a Klan meeting? I rooted for Sherman.

I don't usually mind implausibility in a story, so I liked the Lord of the Rings movies, but there is one thing I don't get. What was the big deal about the king returning? This town got along without one for like 1000 years, but suddenly he's back and everything is awesome. Why exactly? Sure, they're glad the bad guy is gone, but the book is called The Return of the King, not The End of the Bad Guy.

[Nakidana]

Instead the movie tells there is only two solutions. Either one man will take and control the train (fascism) and thus control everyone else or you blow up the train and pray that someone will survive (end of civilization).

In your first post you said that the message of the movie was that you couldn't change anything, but the second option you just mentioned is change. The derailment of the train is a change. As you said, the train was running for 18 years before, without change, just the usual uprisings, and then suddenly a "successful" uprising which did result in change.

Now I agree that the change portrayed is something akin to the end of civilization, and thus arguably worse than before. And that's of course where I disagree with the movie. On another note, I don't think the director portrayed this as a bad thing. You see the survivors walking out into the sunlight and seeing a polar bear. It's positive imagery, they were shown as finally "free" from the eternal loop of the train.


Nah the train is just running and keeps running around the continents until its safe to go outside. And we are told that we can see more and more of the airplane that is lying under the brigde so we know that that day will come in a distant future where you can go outside.

Well, that's not how I interpreted that scene. The airplane thing was revealed by one of the rebels, not the rulers. Thus the rulers were actually lying to the masses about the real situation outside. In fact it was safe to go outside, but the rulers lied about it in order to keep the train going.


The reason why there is uprisings is because they need to limit the amount of people aboard the train. There was only one revolution on the train in its 18 years of running and that was the one you saw in the movie. Where the power is changed to someone else. Because that is a revolution. If you dont change the power its just an uprising.

Yep, I agree.

[exeexe]

Well, that's not how I interpreted that scene. The airplane thing was revealed by one of the rebels, not the rulers. Thus the rulers were actually lying to the masses about the real situation outside. In fact it was safe to go outside, but the rulers lied about it in order to keep the train going.

Well in the beginning a person lost his arm by having it outside for 7 minutes. Sure there is the wind chill effect but i still dont think it would freeze solid if it was safe to go outside..

Here you get this windchill factor with -40C and a speed of 90KM/h
http://www.csgnetwork.com/windchillcalc.html
It says -84C to -68C

If the temp outside was -10C the wind chill would be -36C to -25C. Sure you would get frostbites but i dont think it would freeze solid.

[Nakidana]

Well in the beginning a person lost his arm by having it outside for 7 minutes. Sure there is the wind chill effect but i still dont think it would freeze solid if it was safe to go outside..

Here you get this windchill factor with -40C and a speed of 90KM/h
http://www.csgnetwork.com/windchillcalc.html
It says -84C to -68C

If the temp outside was -10C the wind chill would be -36C to -25C. Sure you would get frostbites but i dont think it would freeze solid.

Okay this is getting nerdish, but I think the mention of the melting ice and the end scene itself clearly points to the outside being habitable again. Remember the very short distance the last escapees got to before completely freezing? Obviously that didn't happen with the survivors at the end.

So how do you explain the freezing arm? Well probably just an inconsistency...I mean the movie is filled with them already. If you want an in-universe explanation, it could just be that they were at a much colder place than at the end. They did mention the altitude they were at, probably they were much higher up then at the end.

Remember, this is a futuristic high-speed train. So IMO it was going at at least 400 km/h (did they ever mention the speed?). This means that first of all it would have travelled a great distance as the film progressed, possibly reaching a warmer climate, and second, the wind chill factor would have been much higher than what you calculated.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

The Bible.

Apart from all the God-is-real stuff, the thing I found the most obnoxious about the Bible was the idea that humans are born evil and that suffering, including and especially vicarious suffering, is a virtue.

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

here's a book I hated:
Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?

It's about the Middle East and just what is wrong with those people over there? It's not that Middle Eastern cultures are not above criticism, but that's not what this book does. It's more like the last gasp of orientalism which sees East and West as binary opposites where the West is always superior, rather than as different aspects of the same Mediterranean culture. It ignores colonialism and broad-brushes Middle Eastern history into a caricature. It's a propaganda piece designed in part to justify American and European intervention in the area.

[exeexe]

Nakidana (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=14187):
Yeah could be true

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Riddick - Just boring muscle-flexing hetero-male fantasy shit about conquering nature, killing people and things, beating the odds and getting someone to fuck you because you're so badass and they love it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Riddick - Just boring muscle-flexing hetero-male fantasy shit about conquering nature, killing people and things, beating the odds and getting someone to fuck you because you're so badass and they love it.

I just noticed this and, as luck would have it, I've watched the first two films these days. The first is so much better - particularly since Riddick's "oh look at me I'm so tough I don't care about anyone but myself" facade starts cracking in the second half of the film, and by the end he's reduced to ranting about how a character shouldn't have sacrificed herself for him.

Then, of course, came a sequel with an entirely different setting, genre and an entirely different Riddick, so if it wasn't for the actually good games we could just as well pretend that the two Riddicks were completely different characters that just happened to be played by Vin Diesel.

[ProletariatPower]

I mostly accept and can even admire pieces of literature or film if they are "artistic" in their nature, that is if they are not only entertaining but explore themes in a deep way even if they go against my beliefs. For example I often admire pieces of literature or movies that are somewhat pro-religious despite my Atheism just because they are thought-provoking or offer interesting explorations of themes. I think it is important for people to distinguish between "art" and "propaganda", art can be conclusive and give an opinion but be reflective, where as what I consider propaganda tends to simply be made with an ideological goal.

However, one movie I really did hate was 'Man of Steel' because it is clearly and blatantly pro-religious propaganda aimed at young people, and also I personally disliked the movie itself. I also have a strong dislike of Tom Clancy as an author for his pro-Imperialist propaganda.

[hashem]

a book called "Torture of the soul". its in Farsi and luckily you can't find it in English or any other language. its written by an Iranian islamist in 1980s.

its about a communist guerilla in Pahlavi regime during 1970s. as the author puts it, he doesn't know why he is fighting for and he is just obeying orders. when he is arrested, he breaks under torture and agrees to everything even lashing his own family (mother, wife and daughter who are also arrested because of him).

the purpose of that book was breaking the heroic image of communist guerillas (mainly Fadaians) in peoples mind. during 1970s, Fadai and Mujahid guerillas were popular heros and symbols of bravery and struggle against oppression. despite what the book says, leaders of islamists were true cowards and traitors. many of them were supporters of Pahlavis in 1953 coup and even after that. many of them agreed to cooperate with police in prisons even without going under torture. they became "revolutionary" only in the final stages of revolution and defended a system which the old dictator wasn't able to defend any more.

you would normally think that bad books such as this can easily be ignored. yes, it really could, if it wasn't one of few books which prisoners had access to in hellish prisons and death camps of 1980s. thus it really was (and is) a "Torture of the soul".

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Batman. Fucking asshole.

Batman is every sweaty libertarian keyboard warrior's absolute wet-dream. Jesus, even writers on cracked are able to see that.

[motion denied]

I don't know if I said it already, but Platoon.

The killing/burning of the village was too much. Fucking horrible, maybe because of its likelihood.

[TheBigREDOne]

I don't know if I said it already, but Platoon.

The killing/burning of the village was too much. Fucking horrible, maybe because of its likelihood.

But how does it clash with your beliefs?

[motion denied]

But how does it clash with your beliefs?

Yeah... I don't think it does.

I just don't like watching it.

[Chomskyan]

When I was a right-wing Zionist, I couldn't stand Noam Chomsky...

Right now, this evil fascist book called Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, is the one book that I despise at the moment. I don't know if I'd say it's because of my beliefs. It's only because all of his arguments make no sense. I only got 12 pages into it before I started wondering if it was just going to be a book about calling things fascist.

Seriously, he goes from Hitler being a fascist, to Stalin being a fascist, to John Dewey being a fascist, to Rousseau being a fascist, to the Matrix being fascist.

I wish there was a facepalm emoticon.

[Chomskyan]

Apart from all the God-is-real stuff, the thing I found the most obnoxious about the Bible was the idea that humans are born evil and that suffering, including and especially vicarious suffering, is a virtue.

That's not what the Bible teaches... that's what Western Christianity teaches. Jews and Orthodox Christians don't believe in Original Sin or Vicarious Atonement for sin.

[MarxSchmarx]

here's a book I hated:
Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?

It's about the Middle East and just what is wrong with those people over there? It's not that Middle Eastern cultures are not above criticism, but that's not what this book does. It's more like the last gasp of orientalism which sees East and West as binary opposites where the West is always superior, rather than as different aspects of the same Mediterranean culture. It ignores colonialism and broad-brushes Middle Eastern history into a caricature. It's a propaganda piece designed in part to justify American and European intervention in the area.

Yeah i read that book too and found it insufferable. It's actually not very well written and also suffers from an excessive focus on the ottoman empire. The colonialism it ignores is not just problematic from ignoring the colonialsm of the Islamic world, but also ignoring the fact that aside from the Balkans and the debatable case of India the intellectual might of Christian Europe came largely from colonialism of non-European states. For instance, the idea of the "noble savage" and "natural laws" were heavily inspired by the Christian experience in the new world, rather than indigenous European creations.

[RedRev]

I got a couple of times when I've done something like this. Like, whenever I'm reading or watching something, and it paints animal liberation activists out to be either homicidal zealots or weak-willed hypocrites. I've lost count of how many times I've seen that and got pissed off.

Another one is Spice and Wolf. I started reading the manga, and it was pretty good. Nice story, nice art; (nice boobs) then it said something like "nothing good can come from abstinence". For someone who's lived the straight edge lifestyle for almost four years now, (four years, damn, I didn't realize how long it's been) this offended me. The whole point of straight edge is the resistance to drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, so reading that made me mad.

I'm probably going to get a lot of hate for saying that, and people dissing straight edge, but I don't care

[Zoroaster]

I know this isn't a book or a movie, but the "Call of Duty" series pisses me off. "Oh, we gotta go kill the Muslim Arab guys cause... Fuck it, let's go!" What a joke.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I know this isn't a book or a movie, but the "Call of Duty" series pisses me off. "Oh, we gotta go kill the Muslim Arab guys cause... Fuck it, let's go!" What a joke.

Something tells me you'd really enjoy Spec Ops: The Line.

[Zoroaster]

Hell's yeah. I've been a strong pacifist since watching "Apocalypse Now" and listening to the audiobook of "Slaughterhouse Five", so I did enjoy the games anti-war themes (even though the games storyline is as confusing as fuck).

[MarcusJuniusBrutus]

That's not what the Bible teaches... that's what Western Christianity teaches. Jews and Orthodox Christians don't believe in Original Sin or Vicarious Atonement for sin.
I'm not qualified to comment on Jewish theology, but I frankly don't believe that Orthodox Christians disbelieve in either the "fallen" nature of humanity or redemption through JC's sacrifice (although as some of observed, coming back to life after makes it somewhat less of a sacrifice). If that's not it, then what was the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection?

[Sea]

I know this isn't a book or a movie, but the "Call of Duty" series pisses me off. "Oh, we gotta go kill the Muslim Arab guys cause... Fuck it, let's go!" What a joke.Does this mean that flying carpets and genies have pretty much vanished from Arabian stereotypes in the West? :crying:

[Atsumari]

Vietnam War movies have always rubbed me the wrong way. Even when they are anti-war, it seems to scream "Yeah the war was bad and it was a tragedy, BUT WE STILL KICKED ASS" kind of heroism.

[Zoroaster]

To Atsumari:

True, but "Apocalypse Now" was quite different. How it portrayed war was fantastic, kind of like the other humoresque-named genre of "anti-epics", like "Catch .22" and "Slaughterhouse Five".

[Nakidana]

Vietnam War movies have always rubbed me the wrong way. Even when they are anti-war, it seems to scream "Yeah the war was bad and it was a tragedy, BUT WE STILL KICKED ASS" kind of heroism.

Yup, although Born on the fourth of July was very good.

Apocalypse now...meh, it was good enough, but too long. Got bored near the end. Kinda overrated tbh.

[Hrafn]

I love Apocalypse Now. :( especially Redux.

[Zoroaster]

To Sea:

I wish we got rid of all stereotypes of all people. But, of course, that's not the case.:(

[Creative Destruction]

I have a nostalgia for Forrest Gump and I still enjoy the movie. I can see where some messages could be pulled from it that are problematic. At its core, it's a vehicle to explore different social issues that arose in America through several eras. That itself is interesting, despite any messages you can take from it. But, in this sense, it was sort of like The Butler. I initially came away with a very bad taste in my mouth because of that movie, especially how it portrayed the Panthers. At least in Forrest Gump, some of the rhetoric being put up by the guys playing the Panthers was more or less what they were actually saying. The Butler straight up fucking lied about what the Panthers were and that was extremely disappointing, considering the story.

Other than that, I try to avoid movies and books that clash with my beliefs. That's not healthy since it creates somewhat of an echo chamber, but I find myself getting frustrated to the point of not being able to enjoy anything about a piece of work if it's constantly saying things that run in with my ideological framework. That's just kind of the way it is.

However, one notable exception I make for that is Cormac McCarthy. His stories, prose and even some of the embedded messages in his novels give me enough to go on and really enjoy his stuff. Plus it's kind of fun to have a discourse with yourself about some old southern dude's conservative nihilism.

[Sinister Intents]

Does this mean that flying carpets and genies have pretty much vanished from Arabian stereotypes in the West? :crying:

Those were actual stereotypes? I'm gonna start a thread on stereotypes.... :crying:

Also Atlas Shrugged movie for obvious reasons

[Creative Destruction]

Vietnam War movies have always rubbed me the wrong way. Even when they are anti-war, it seems to scream "Yeah the war was bad and it was a tragedy, BUT WE STILL KICKED ASS" kind of heroism.

I'm sure that's the case for some (that's probably true for Hamburger Hill), but not for films like Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon. Jacob's Ladder could probably be considered an anti-Vietnam movie, as well. Really well done.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't really get this feeling with Vietnam War movies much. Forrest Gump, probably. Hamburger Hill, probably. You know what films I do get that feeling from? Flicks that were set in wars from the 90s. Black Hawk Down, Jarhead, etc.

[Creative Destruction]

Those were actual stereotypes? I'm gonna start a thread on stereotypes.... :crying:

Also Atlas Shrugged movie for obvious reasons

you don't even really need to hate Atlas Shrugged itself to hate that horrible movie.

[Zoroaster]

To Sinister Intents:

You think the movie was bad? Try reading the book. I Should have never taken that bet from my brother.:lol:

[Црвена]

I don't tend to hate books because of my beliefs, (apart from the aforementioned Ayn Rand of course, but her books are a whole new level of right-wing propaganda) since books would be boring without a wide range of ideologies represented in them, and usually the books have other aspects to them apart from the political propaganda. Although I don't appreciate authors slapping me in the face with their views in fiction, left- or right-wing.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

One of the biggest love/hate relationships I have, as far as popular media is concerned, is with Doug Tennapel.

Tennapel is a genuinely gifted cartoonist and storyteller. He's the creator of Earthworm Jim and the Neverhood games. He's published some fantastic comic books and graphic novels that are both unbelievably wacky and strangely heartfelt at the same time.

But Tennapel is also a devout Christian. Which is fine. But he's also a political conservative. These two things don't tend to mix very well, and Tennapel is no exception. Most of the time the religious and political aspects don't show up in his work, but on occasion there will be little bits and pieces that make you remember the author's convictions.

[PhoenixAsh]

Twilight Saga. Because I believe Vampires shouldn't sparkle and that a girls choice between necrophelia and bestiality isn't really empowering.


My (for lack of a better word) daughter is 10 now and she wants me to read them to her because her stephmother (Tink) whispered this in her ear. Tink is evil. She knows I hate Twilight but she also knows I won't refuse to make Mishka happy.

She has autism and once an idea get stuck in there...

Or she does it on purpose I don't really know. She is like a cat. One moment she is totally sweet and the next she looks at you with a look that says "straight from hell"...she has that from her birth mother.

[paranoidandroid]

The 90s privileged kid films, Slacker, Reality Bites, Empire Records, and A Dream for an Insomniac

Anything of that Petit Bourgeoisie bullshit nature should be resigned to the bin.

[The Red Star Rising]

I know I'm late buuuut...


Anything that glorifies imperial interventionism.

Also: "Atlas shrugged", do I have to explain this? :laugh: Haven't even read it but I know I'll despise it so why bother?
Atlas Shrugged is a terrible book on purely literary merits. I've beta-read first drafts of fanfiction that made for better reads. That Ayn Rand is a crank with odious beliefs just adds to the book not really having any value. You can't even really make fun of it Mystery Science Theater 3000 style because it's so damn boring.


Batman. Fucking asshole.
Batman always struck me as the epitome of the Randroid Ubermensch. The absurdly rich obnoxiously perfect great man defeating the criminal element that the corrupt, ineffectual government is entirely incapable of handling. Also, constantly bringing unpowered Children into the line of fire against supercriminals is a major strike against him being particularly heroic.

At least Tony Stark is a fallible on and off drunkard. (Also he's funny rather than "grrr gargly growl platitudes JUSTICE imthegoddamnbatman grr")

[Zoroaster]

I know this is obvious, but "Mein Kampf" was downright horrifying.

[LiaSofia]

Another Dostoyevsky fan here. The Brothers Karamazov is reactionary all the way through its 1,000 pages and it reads like an advertisement for the Russian Orthodox Church, so the fact that I actually enjoyed it has to mean something. I do think that it's made even better because his pro-religion/conservatism points are not as strong as he wanted them to be and also his opponents are not given weak arguments. What would be a strawman argument in another book is really discussed in depth. I imagine Dostoyevsky had huge doubts all through his lifetime about the Big Questions, and wasn't as close to resolving them as he appeared. This gives his books an ambiguity that's quite interesting.

I can't say there have been many films or books that I've disliked because of my politics. A lot of rom-com type films are irritating because of the lazy gender stereotyping. There are also a couple of books I read as a child that I now dislike - 'What Katy Did' was heavily moralistic in that weird Victorian way but I just find it amusing. Enid Blyton's books are awful though, even more so when you know anything about her.

[The Red Star Rising]

I know this is obvious, but "Mein Kampf" was ownright horrifying.
Mein Kampf has text that reads like the Silmarillion even before you get into the fact that it's quite possibly the most vile and hate filled tome ever penned by men.

And no, comparing Mein Kampf to that epic of Tolkien's is not high praise (oh it was epic alright, epically impenetrable).

[Non-Aligned]

No. I keep my need for entertainment and ideology separate. Pointless to hate a movie due to it being against your beliefs.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Batman always struck me as the epitome of the Randroid Ubermensch. The absurdly rich obnoxiously perfect great man defeating the criminal element that the corrupt, ineffectual government is entirely incapable of handling. Also, constantly bringing unpowered Children into the line of fire against supercriminals is a major strike against him being particularly heroic.

Yeah, I was rooting for Bane all the way through TDKR, and I'm sure I wasn't alone!

[Buzzard]

Haven't seen it actually, but from what I know of it, ''the purge''

and really man, ''the purge 2, ANARCHY'' ...please.

[TheBigREDOne]

Wow! You guys brought this thread back to life! :)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

You know, people often think that Batman is some kind of lolbertarian wish fulfillment at its most puerile.

But people always forget one major fact about Bruce Wayne: He's insane.

True, he's a very high-functioning and very wealthy kind of insane. But he is not mentally well by any stretch of the imagination.

And the reason is because no matter how much he ages, no matter how much his succeeds financially or how many criminals he beats up.....deep in his psyche, Batman is still living that faithful night from his childhood. In his mind, he's still in that rainy alley near the theater, crouching over the corpses of his murdered parents. That one moment in his life has been permanently scarred into his brain. Everything that has to do with Batman all stems from the moment Joe Chill pulled the trigger and killed mommy and daddy. It inspired in him not only extreme paranoia, but also an insatiable addiction to vigilantism. He is compelled to do what he does because no amount of bruises and broken bones will avenge his parents' deaths.

Once you stop looking at Batman as the badass caped crusader with the awesome car and the cool gadgents, and start to look at him as the broken, PTSD-addled lunatic he actually is.....then the superhero image proves itself to be a most miserable and depressing facade.

.....Also, Harley Quinn is my fucking spirit animal (next to ***** Puddin' from Robot Chicken).

[The Intransigent Faction]

No. I keep my need for entertainment and ideology separate. Pointless to hate a movie due to it being against your beliefs.

In other words, you believe that entertainment doesn't have any political significance or reflect any hegemonic culture. You also reject blatantly reactionary racist or sexist undertones on purely aesthetic terms.

There's something to gain from entertainment that has some reactionary undertones (even overtones). I get that. Pretending that they can be completely separated in all venues, however, is just...Absurd.

[The Intransigent Faction]

You know, people often think that Batman is some kind of lolbertarian wish fulfillment at its most puerile.

But people always forget one major fact about Bruce Wayne: He's insane.

True, he's a very high-functioning and very wealthy kind of insane. But he is not mentally well by any stretch of the imagination.

And the reason is because no matter how much he ages, no matter how much his succeeds financially or how many criminals he beats up.....deep in his psyche, Batman is still living that faithful night from his childhood. In his mind, he's still in that rainy alley near the theater, crouching over the corpses of his murdered parents. That one moment in his life has been permanently scarred into his brain. Everything that has to do with Batman all stems from the moment Joe Chill pulled the trigger and killed mommy and daddy. It inspired in him not only extreme paranoia, but also an insatiable addiction to vigilantism. He is compelled to do what he does because no amount of bruises and broken bones will avenge his parents' deaths.

Once you stop looking at Batman as the badass caped crusader with the awesome car and the cool gadgents, and start to look at him as the broken, PTSD-addled lunatic he actually is.....then the superhero image proves itself to be a most miserable and depressing facade.

.....Also, Harley Quinn is my fucking spirit animal (next to ***** Puddin' from Robot Chicken).

Thanks, this is a great interpretation! I always sensed that about Bruce. After all, Ra's Al Ghul freed Bruce, trained him and gave him a purpose (destroying corruption), and in return Bruce burned his house down and left him for dead. :lol:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Idk, I'm weird I even like books I think are dumb or lame just for the sake of them being so and it amuses me quite. Why I like child's books and teen books in addition to shit novels like Rand shit and also belligerent nonsense like nazi writings and stuff because idk the oddity to of it. Like a horrid spectacle or hilarious buffoonery, it's amusing. That one dickens story like with Pip became tedious at one point but then with the imagery of the moldy wedding display I got really really into it. It's hard for me to watch Clockwork Orange or other movies which involves rape tho. I also refuse to rewatch Schindlers Lost cuz it's awfully sad.

I have a love hate relationship with Twilight?

[Bala Perdida]

I thought the last Batman was pretty cool, but I hate it's implications. That's what a popular uprising gets us, huh? Well I guess Baine > Obama.

Comrade Obama has sold out to the bourgeoisie! Our red leader has waited too long to liberate us from our dreadful gun ownership rights! His Medicare reforms have not done enough to increase our government dependency! At this rate, we will not see the rise of the USSA anytime soon! :D:D:D

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

Anything Terry Pratchett wrote after he decided that clunky allegory, weird neo-victorian nostalgia and banal liberal undercurrents was a better idea than satirizing fantasy and sci-fi. Couldn't put a precise point on when this tendency started but its really stopped me from enjoying stuff i used to be pretty fond of.

Speaking of fantasy, Terry Goodkind is a randroid and objectivist of the very lowest order and stops at absolutely nothing to shoehorn in his philosophy (if you can call it as such) into his books. Its annoying because he seems to have a lot of theoretically good ideas and sometimes the writing is actually pretty good, but its all so cynical in that endlessly tedious way that only self-described cynics can be and the only way his heroes differ from his villains is their status as True Individuals and Prime Movers or whatever because apparently for randroids the slightest flicker of a character even being likeable is some kind of pinko tomfoolery.

[Sewer Socialist]

I actually really like movies where stuff gets blown up and there's political struggle. Die Hard, Rambo, Red Dawn, etc. The leftists always lose, of course, and they're always caricatures, but I can enjoy them anyway.

But does anyone remember the part in Red Dawn when the Cuban firing squad executes a bunch of people singing "America the Beautiful" really off key? I always laugh.

[Rafiq]

I just watched snowpiercer, long in to the movie i thought it was good but the ending ruined it all. Basically the message you would get from the movie is that even if you successfully carried out a violent revolution then in the end you cant change anything.

No, it's about the negation of the negation (semi serious). The true radical was the Chrono addict, Chris Evans wanted to seize the engine, the basis of life but still within the confines of the train. The other guy wanted to get the fuck out, thereby moving beyond the conflict itself and trivializing it via establishing a true radical affirmative. Think of Marx's "philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it" - the uprising was like a philosophical disagreement - but the true radical wants to destroy the basis of the enemy's power - the train itself.

[Rafiq]

The trains cycles were analogous to the constant changes in governance, uprisings and so on that simply reproduced the existing order like some kind of alpha male cycle. To get out of the train is the real revolution.

[JahLemon]

I can't stand films like White House Down or Olympus Has Fallen. Not even that big of a fan of overtly left wing films, other than Battleship Potemkin and Strike.

[Illegalitarian]

Batman fights for the average person and uses his wealth to exploit the bourgeois by getting them to invest in all of his gadgets.. kind of. Also he's pretty skilled.


The real enemy here is Iron Man, because he literally has not other powers aside from being rich.

[Delusional Kid]

The film the east is essentially some liberal drivel that says "unregulated capitalism is bad mmmkay. But extremism is also bad mmmkay."
Throughout the entire film I was seriously rooting for the "terrorists" and didn't see much wrong with their tactics.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

i loved Avatar but despite otherwise enjoying it i really dislike the way legend of korra is portraying more or less any social movement at all. Especially in the caricatures of communism/anarchism, it often seemed so clumsily put in, as if the writers for whatever reason really do have some major ideological beef and are willing to somewhat spoil the programme to get it across.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I had a problem with "The East" too but for completely different reasons. For me, the film would've been a lot more interesting if they had portrayed the group as more "extreme" and violent and more constantly embroiled in the kind of atmosphere of fear & paranoia that such groups are always gripped by.

The group was portrayed as radicalized people who were engaged in illegal political actions, but none of them really strayed into the land of moral ambiguity, and people who choose that sort of life are always forced to make uncomfortable and disturbing choices...even groups like the ELF (which I think is the main inspiration for "the East") considered moving beyond property destruction to targeted assassinations of individuals.

[Futility Personified]

I really enjoyed Brave New World, but it made me very uncomfortable. Which is good! Thought provocation should do what it says on the tin. But it brings up feelings of great futility. In the prelude in my copy it did mention that Huxley wanted to include an anarchist society that was highly scientific, but decided that later on in his life. It would've been a more optimistic book if he had. Nonetheless, enjoyable and fascinating read but... just leaves a niggling feeling of doom.

[Palmares]

I had a problem with "The East" too but for completely different reasons. For me, the film would've been a lot more interesting if they had portrayed the group as more "extreme" and violent and more constantly embroiled in the kind of atmosphere of fear & paranoia that such groups are always gripped by.

The group was portrayed as radicalized people who were engaged in illegal political actions, but none of them really strayed into the land of moral ambiguity, and people who choose that sort of life are always forced to make uncomfortable and disturbing choices...even groups like the ELF (which I think is the main inspiration for "the East") considered moving beyond property destruction to targeted assassinations of individuals.

Though I see your point, to my knowledge, the kind of tactics (targeting people - poisoning) undertaken in the film is not entirely accurate of what groups like the ELF have actually done. Maybe they (who?) considered it, but that's only thoughtcrime. Almost like Minority Report!

So I think in that sense it is more extreme, more like Kaczynski or his clones.

There are other films along these lines too, so I feel it's becoming somewhat of a trend to cover this subject matter. There's that one where they plan to blow up a dam if anyone knows the title of that one.

The ending are always painful hollywood-esque garbage of course.

[motion denied]

The East is the worst movie ever. Hands down.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The East is the worst movie ever. Hands down.

Wow, the "worst movie ever"? I don't think that's true. At least the actors were in the shots and you could hear their lines...that's more than I can say for some films

[Os Cangaceiros]

Though I see your point, to my knowledge, the kind of tactics (targeting people - poisoning) undertaken in the film is not entirely accurate of what groups like the ELF have actually done. Maybe they (who?) considered it, but that's only thoughtcrime. Almost like Minority Report!

The "who" was the first-generation American ELF. Daniel McGowan talks about how they had serious discussions about whether to move beyond property destruction into targeted assassinations of individuals in the film If A Tree Falls, shortly before the disintegration of the group.

[Art Vandelay]

There's that one where they plan to blow up a dam if anyone knows the title of that one.

Night Moves.

Which I kinda found to be a good flick, although I guess I'm a sucker for any film that has to do with 'radicals.' I definity didn't forsee the ending and would say it was certainly a better film than 'the east.' I also thought it was interesting that the creators of 'night moves' are being sued, due to the fact that a film company is currently in the process of turning Edward Abbey's 'the monkey wrench gang' into a film, and the claim 'night moves' essentially stole the plot.

[Palmares]

The "who" was the first-generation American ELF. Daniel McGowan talks about how they had serious discussions about whether to move beyond property destruction into targeted assassinations of individuals in the film If A Tree Falls, shortly before the disintegration of the group.

It's been a while since I've seen that documentary. Thanks for clearing that up.

But yeah, I still think there's a big difference between what you think about doing, and what you actually do. On top of that, their actual acts are examples for me in humanist moralism that differentiates them from say, similar groups in Mexico.

[Palmares]

Night Moves.

Which I kinda found to be a good flick, although I guess I'm a sucker for any film that has to do with 'radicals.' I definity didn't forsee the ending and would say it was certainly a better film than 'the east.' I also thought it was interesting that the creators of 'night moves' are being sued, due to the fact that a film company is currently in the process of turning Edward Abbey's 'the monkey wrench gang' into a film, and the claim 'night moves' essentially stole the plot.

Thanks for the film title. I'll have to check it out. Especially if you think it's better than the East. A review of the film I saw a while back I remember saying something along the lines of it being good, but with some shortcomings.

I didn't know about Edward Abbey adaptation, or at least didn't remember. I'll have to look into it, but I guess overall, I just don't expect that much from these films. It's not like the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, for example, was accurate or even very good. Makes me feel sorry for Alan Moore.

[Gileson]

I'm not fond of Fullmetal Alchemist and Code Geass since both series came off as apologies for the Axis Powers, or at least Imperial Japan. Along with other things.

I'll also bring up that Avatar sequel and its approach to mass movements.

[jullia]

Captain america and all the superheros movies. I didn't see all but i don't enjoy the few i saw.

[jullia]

More or less the saga James Bond.

I enjoyed it when i was young (i stop to watch at goldeneye).
I recently watch the new one with Daniel Graig and i have a very different vision of the movie. A lot of details disturb me as the facination for the luxury, the apology of blind and uncontrol violence.
James Bond doesn't appear to me as a sympathic and charismatic guy, just an arrogant asshole.
The women who fall in love for the manliest James after two min:mad:

[RedKobra]

There are a fair few films/tv shows that have left a very bad taste in my mouth, one i remember very clearly though is Collatoral Damage, starring Arnie. The baddies attacked America and some innocents died. Terrible. Arnie straps a shit load of weapondry to himself, travels south, finds the baddies and proceeds to lay waste to near enough an entire nation. Collateral damage indeed, but they were brown people so I guess they were expendable.

I loved shows like Spooks but whenever they were persuing a leftist group, invariably, I couldn't find anything the leftists were doing that I disagreed with and always felt deflated when they ended up all dead. They always used to come tantalizingly close to bringing down society as well, which further added to the frustration.

[Counterculturalist]

For the most part, I have no trouble appreciating art that doesn't reinforce my political beliefs.

I can, however, find elements of almost any mainstream Hollywood film that offend me to a certain extent. For all the right-wing bluster about how "liberal" Hollywood is, if you pay attention to the subtle messages in almost every film you'll find a level of conservatism that is straight out of the 1950s, or in some cases the Victorian era. Sure, outright racism and homophobia is totally uncool, but there are egregious displays of sexism and classism that make my skin crawl in most films.

To be honest, I have a much easier time enjoying films (or art in general) with an in-your-face reactionary message than overlooking these more subtle and (poorly) hidden reactionary messages, which affect me like nails on a chalkboard.

[Sabot Cat]

Ace Ventura, for being transphobic trash. Although I don't think I would've liked it anyway.

[Tim Redd]

Are there any films or books you hated on the sole basis, that it was reactionary?
This means any film with a conservative viewpoint, or one that glorifys bourgeois life.

Alternatively are there any films or books you liked, despite it being reactionary?

I hated the fascist ending of "Batman Begins" (2005). Christian Bale was the lead. What I disliked was how the real life racist, armed thug, officers of the NYPD were portrayed as heroes in the movie. Part of my objection stems from the general fact of how the whole Batman mileu is pro-pig, and in that movie at the end they were shown beating masses of people. Presumably these masses of people represented a viewpoint opposite the police. And from all indications I think these people had a perspective that I would agree with as a revolutionary.

[blake 3:17]

I only dislike books or movies for being boring

[Bala Perdida]

Found this thread! Cool.

In the break room today I was reminded of that Clint Eastwood movie from 2009 I think. Gran Torino. Oh my god, first of all Clint Eastwood. There's 50%. After, that movie is some bullshit that racist old guys are actually good people. You know because white saviour gets you a job and leaves you a car. Look colored people that's how life is done.

The rest of the movie is basically an illustration of the minority on minority violence myth.

[Counterculturalist]

Reminds me of Crash (2004), that bold statement against racism whose message is that structural racism doesn't exist, people of color are just as racist as whites, and if you're a white cop who's been going through a stressful time, you might just rape a black woman on the job... doesn't mean you're a bad dude or anything, shit happens.

[Tim Redd]

Are there any films or books you hated on the sole basis, that it was reactionary?
This means any film with a conservative viewpoint, or one that glorifys bourgeois life.

Yes 'Birth of a Nation' (pro-confederacy), 'Reservoir Dogs' (gratuitous violence) and 'Pulp Fiction' (too strivingly perverted). Travolta in Pulp Fiction and 'Get Shorty' is obnoxiously too cool by more than half.

[BIXX]

Why is gratuitous violence an issue?

[Tim Redd]

Why is gratuitous violence an issue?

Why wouldn't gratuitous violence be an issue? By definition gratuitous means unnecessary, or not required.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Why wouldn't gratuitous violence be an issue? By definition gratuitous means unnecessary, or not required.

It would seem that that would be in the eye of the beholder though.

[Tim Redd]

I highly recommend seeing the recently released, or re-released films:

'Victoria' - (A young Spanish woman who has newly moved to Berlin finds her flirtation with a local guy turn potentially deadly as their night out with his friends reveals a dangerous secret. The 1 hour 30 minute flick was filmed in a single continuous take from opening to end.)

'Heart of a Dog' - a progressive women's reminisces on her life including with a dog.

'Heneral Luna' - about Philippine revolutionaries with great general Luna fighting US colonialism at the dawn of the 20th century.

'The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution' - great history of the Panther party.

'Jafar Panahi's Taxi' - anti-Iran regime democratic activist provides taxi rides while addressing key social issues.

'99 Homes' - exposes the 1% scam that rips off innumerable families due to the 2008 housing collapse.

'Beasts of No Nation' - about the conditions that induce some African children to join militias and the life story of one of those youth.

[Tim Redd]

It would seem that that would be in the eye of the beholder though.

Right. To my eye it was gratuitous. I have a right to say that. This is my criticism though obviously not yours. I thought reader's would understand it was at least my opinion. There are others who agree with my view. If you don't agree, you can't deny me and others the right to our opinion.

[Bala Perdida]

Reminds me of Crash (2004), that bold statement against racism whose message is that structural racism doesn't exist, people of color are just as racist as whites, and if you're a white cop who's been going through a stressful time, you might just rape a black woman on the job... doesn't mean you're a bad dude or anything, shit happens.

My ethnic studies teacher in community college actually tried showing that movie to the class. They said it was 'eye opening' you know 'different perspective' bullshit... Egh..

I don't remember their words. I just remember me and my friend walked out of that class before the movie started.

[Tim Redd]

My ethnic studies teacher in community college actually tried showing that movie to the class. They said it was 'eye opening' you know 'different perspective' bullshit... Egh..

I don't remember their words. I just remember me and my friend walked out of that class before the movie started.

Obviously being a backward, right wing troll disgustingly makes you happy.

[Moderators, certainly a candidate for 'Opposing Ideologies'.]

[Counterculturalist]

Obviously being a backward, right wing troll disgustingly makes you happy.

[Moderators, certainly a candidate for 'Opposing Ideologies'.]

Huh? The movie we're talking about here presents an extremely reactionary interpretation of racism under the guise of liberalism. Nobody's trolling.

[Tim Redd]

I only dislike books or movies for being boring

So if it has a right wing message, theme, or plot outcome/resolution, it's OK to you as long as it's not "boring"?

No way as far as I'm concerned. An essential element of what makes a flick above average movie is if its message, theme, or plot outcome/resolution is progressive - favors the left perspective rather than the right.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yeah...I hated books because of my believes. Prime example...I hated Twilight...because I believe it is really, really bad. (also vampires don't sparkle)

# Twilight sucks
# A girls choice between bestiality and pedophilia
# Team guy who almost hit Bella with a car

****


Seriously though....7 years in Tibet. For obvious reasons.

[Bala Perdida]

Obviously being a backward, right wing troll disgustingly makes you happy.

[Moderators, certainly a candidate for 'Opposing Ideologies'.]

Stfu redd bait. Go take your RCP wannabe ass back to your blogspot website

[Tim Redd]

Huh? The movie we're talking about here presents an extremely reactionary interpretation of racism under the guise of liberalism. Nobody's trolling.

Excuse please, I misinterpreted Bala Perdida's post regarding the movie 'Crash'.

[Invader Zim]

Found this thread! Cool.

In the break room today I was reminded of that Clint Eastwood movie from 2009 I think. Gran Torino. Oh my god, first of all Clint Eastwood. There's 50%. After, that movie is some bullshit that racist old guys are actually good people. You know because white saviour gets you a job and leaves you a car. Look colored people that's how life is done.

The rest of the movie is basically an illustration of the minority on minority violence myth.


The point of the film is to outline that racism is built on ignorance of the 'other', and that once that ignorance is expunged then so too is the prejudice. Thus, Eastwood's character is indeed an "old racist guy", as you so eloquently put it, but his growing relationship with a family of individuals he had previously 'othered' required that he reappraise his long held perspective of people of south-east Asian ethnicity.



The problem with the film is that it is crude and simplistic redemption narrative until the final act (when it finally becomes interesting by subverting Hollywood norms). Regardless of its unremitting simplicity, your reading of it is so woeful that it is necessary to ask: did you watch the same film as everybody else or are you simply incapable of following a basic plot?

[Invader Zim]

So if it has a right wing message, theme, or plot outcome/resolution, it's OK to you as long as it's not "boring"?

No way as far as I'm concerned. An essential element of what makes a flick above average movie is if its message, theme, or plot outcome/resolution is progressive - favors the left perspective rather than the right.

I can't speak for Blake, but I certainly can enjoy such a piece. It is a sign of a feeble mind, and massive intellectual and ideological insecurity, to be unable to tolerate, analyse and consider ideas that promise to be (or are) anathema to one's own. This is particularly true when it comes to a piece of art. If you cannot examine something outside of the prism of ideology then, quite frankly, you should offer to be an eye doner while still living because you are clearly unworthy of them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The point of the film is to outline that racism is built on ignorance of the 'other', and that once that ignorance is expunged then so too is the prejudice. Thus, Eastwood's character is indeed an "old racist guy", as you so eloquently put it, but his growing relationship with a family of individuals he had previously 'othered' required that he reappraise his long held perspective of people of south-east Asian ethnicity.

Yes, but I don't think that's incompatible with the film being about the essentially liberal belief that, as BP puts it, "racist old guys are actually good people". All of their prejudices are just the result of ignorance or trauma. These characters are a dime a dozen.

[Invader Zim]

Yes, but I don't think that's incompatible with the film being about the essentially liberal belief that, as BP puts it, "racist old guys are actually good people". All of their prejudices are just the result of ignorance or trauma. These characters are a dime a dozen.

And as I pointed out:

"The problem with the film is that it is crude and simplistic redemption narrative until the final act (when it finally becomes interesting by subverting Hollywood norms)."

And of course, Eastwood's character is not a 'good guy', rather he is an intransigent racist, unable to hold a meaningful relationship with anybody else other than a couple of similarly aged intransigents (aside from his deceased spouce), inclusing his own family, until he actually undergoes his transformative experience. The story is, at its heart, a simple parable about the folly of racism.

[Tim Redd]

Are there any films or books you hated on the sole basis, that it was reactionary?
This means any film with a conservative viewpoint, or one that glorifys bourgeois life.

Yes: "Birth of A Nation", "Atlas Shrugged", "Juno". Also any number of pro-Christian, pro other religions, and pro-mysticism films.

[Tim Redd]

So if it has a right wing message, theme, or plot outcome/resolution, it's OK to you as long as it's not "boring"?

No way as far as I'm concerned. An essential element of what makes a flick above average movie is if its message, theme, or plot outcome/resolution is progressive - favors the left perspective rather than the right.


... I certainly can enjoy such a piece.

If a person thinks a movie is based upon or is primarily emitting reactionary ideas, what sense does it make to even think the person would enjoy much of anything about the film.


It is a sign of a feeble mind, and massive intellectual and ideological insecurity, to be unable to tolerate, analyse and consider ideas that promise to be (or are) anathema to one's own.

All that I have said is that I don't like films that emit ideas I oppose. Logically I don't see how you jumped from that to then question my ability to analyze such films. In fact I have effectively analyzed many such films - that doesn't mean I have to like them in anyway.


This is particularly true when it comes to a piece of art. If you cannot examine something outside of the prism of ideology then, quite frankly, you should offer to be an eye doner while still living because you are clearly unworthy of them.

Some things like a sunset can be examined "outside of the prism of ideology", but most films have ideas, plots and themes that require applying an ideological viewpoint (consciously or unconsciously) to analyze them.

In reality your stance toward film criticism does in fact reflect a form of bourgeois ideology and you are unaware that you mirror that viewpoint. It's bourgeois ideology to think that most, especially significant, social affairs in movies can be approached and analyzed effectively in an ideology free manner, or with the ideological backbone of a jelly fish.

[reviscom1]

One I hated: Air Force One. Can't remember the exact plot but the baddies were trying to engineer a coup that would bring to power a former Soviet General.

The Soviet General himself did not feature very much as a character,but to round things off at the end of the film he was shot down in cold blood by a US SWAT team as he walked out of a building.

The news was relayed to the waiting "good" characters, including the US State Sec. Glenn Close, whereupon they all started cheering and punching the air.

It wasn't so much the anti-Soviet propaganda I minded as the blithe acceptance of the principle that it is OK to shoot an unarmed man in cold blood without due process. And the uncritical acceptance of the idea that the appropriate reaction to such a killing is full-throated celebration

[Tim Redd]

One I hated: Air Force One. Can't remember the exact plot but the baddies were trying to engineer a coup that would bring to power a former Soviet General.

From the previews I saw it was a pro patria trash heap about protecting the chief executive of the terrorist, exploitation based US empire and I made a choice then to refuse to see it. And I have refused every time it raises its ugly head to replay on cable.

[Tim Redd]

Stfu redd bait. Go take your RCP wannabe ass back to your blogspot website

Yeah right, I'm going shut up because of your ignorant rant. Being in the RCP is the last thing I want. Dirty bastard Avakian, the leader of the RCP, wants to whip up a cult of personality for himself on the basis of taking credit for landmark and innovative concepts, theory, and strategy which was in fact formulated by me. (See the paper "Forward with Revolutionary Dialectics" at www.risparty.org (http://www.risparty.org) for details. That is for others of course and not Bala "Perfidy".) :)

[Aslan]

I dislike superhero movies (with the exception of Batman and Deadpool).

Superheros are basically people's euphoric happy dream. A world where the great forces of our world (the state and corporations) pale in comparison to greater beings and their superhuman wills. It just shows a that people have a subconscious need for control in the universe.

I hate Disney princess movies! The way they manipulate a child's mind with messages of subservience to others is disgusting. I especially despise Pocahontas for it's whitewashing of mass-murder. The worst part of these movies is that Disney has almost complete control of the animation industry. Its so bad that it goes to the point where you are crazy if you've never watched a Disney movie.

Life of Pi was a good movie, although it goes into postmodernist bullshit and the whitewashing of poverty in India in general. It looks like a Disney movie in some scenes for Christ's sake!

I also don't like The Sound of Music at all. The positivity of bourgeois family is sickening.

I thought A Clockwork Orange was a good interpretation of the general degradation of a capitalist society in general.

I love Princess Mononoke although the environmental message gets into ''spiritual-Gaia'' love nature hate mankind's evil influence. Artistically it is an excellent movie. And it even portrays ingenuity as found in a certain village in a positive light. It had very strong female characters as well.

[Tim Redd]

I hate Disney princess movies! The way they manipulate a child's mind with messages of subservience to others is disgusting.

And the messages of subservience being directed at girls and women. I was just thinking this a day ago.

[Aslan]

Exactly, and it still teaches sexism to the most malleable of all age groups, children. I wish the stupid company could go bankrupt. I used to watch the damn movies, and now I can't even stand looking at them.

[jullia]

I dislike superhero movies (with the exception of Batman and Deadpool).

Superheros are basically people's euphoric happy dream. A world where the great forces of our world (the state and corporations) pale in comparison to greater beings and their superhuman wills. It just shows a that people have a subconscious need for control in the universe.


Same here, i don't know if it's due to political position but i have dificulty with superhero movies.

[cyu]

Sorry I'm pooping all over the forums, but I have nothing better to do than talk to myself :lol:

When you stop trying to control your inner circle, but help your inner circle control whatever may or may not exist beyond them, then you magnify your power, rather than allow yourself to be divided and conquered.

[Aslan]

Sorry I'm pooping all over the forums, but I have nothing better to do than talk to myself :lol:

If you're so bored then get off your ass and run somewhere! Find something fun to do!

[Guardia Rossa]

12 Monkeys. It appears to be the "Good moralist" vs "Bad nihilist" blablabla all over again.

Apart from this bullshit, it's a fine series, but it only got 13 episodes (~5 hours) and the last ones make you fell like a bullet train.

[Comrade Jacob]

New SpongeBob is pure ideology
*sniff*

[Comrade Jacob]

Captain 'Murica!!!!!!!!!
Savin' da werld

[Comrade Jacob]

Red Alert 2

Jesus Christ.

[Synergy]

I hate Disney princess movies! The way they manipulate a child's mind with messages of subservience to others is disgusting. I especially despise Pocahontas for it's whitewashing of mass-murder. The worst part of these movies is that Disney has almost complete control of the animation industry. Its so bad that it goes to the point where you are crazy if you've never watched a Disney movie.


But but, my childhood! Forever ruined!

Are there any good animated films for the youngins?

[reviscom1]

Films I enjoyed despite their politics:

There was a remake of Red Dawn a couple of years ago, about a purported North Korean occupation of the United States and the heroic resistance against it. Obviously, it's a real propagandist tub-thumper but at the same time it can't be denied that it's a rather sensitive, intelligently made, nuanced piece of work. The final scene, for example, is a "the fight goes on" montage of an attempt by the resistance to storm a North Korean military camp. The resistance fighters are even waving around an American flag as they storm in. But it's not filmed as something glorious and stirring. It's filmed as reality. The attackers are clearly terrified and hesitant and don't really know what they're doing. But they go in anyway, which actually increases the heroic effect.

There are other scenes which could have been cheesily stereotypical but which the makers cleverly subvert by filming them as they might happen in actual real life - for example a scene where the older brother tells the younger brother that he's proud of him just before getting killed.

In a similar vein Battle Los Angeles, about an alien invasion and the soldiers who have to deal with it, can only be an extended recruitment advert paid for by the US Marine Corps. The soldiers are all portrayed as big-hearted, stand up guys, who never leave a man behind, watch each others' backs and put their lives on the line to save women, children and dogs. And it all looks kind of fun.

But, again, a well made, well structured, intelligent film with a tight script. And, of course, the communitarian, self-sacrificing, "no man bigger than the team" ethos of idealised military life is not a million miles away from the ideals of Socialism.

Finally, it contains one rather strikingly discordant line in amongst all the tub thumping. Speculating on the aliens' strategy one army analyst observes "What's the first thing you do when you colonise a new territory? You wipe out the indigenous population", which can only be a reference to white colonial genocides in general, and the US displacement of Native Americans in particular.

[RedSonRising]

I can still enjoy white savior movies like Dances with Wolves and Last Samurai even though I probably shouldn't.

Can't watch pro-war propaganda movies.

Some of my favorite books are dystopias with a conformity-enforcing bureaucracy, but I've grown tired and mistrusting of that trope as a veiled anti-communist critique.


Batman. Fucking asshole.

Lmao. I justify this a few ways. One is the fact that Batman's villains are mostly privileged individuals with a cartoonish manifestation of mental illness. And he's often depicted as helping the most exploited and marginalized, like sex workers, by offering them good jobs. He's still a capitalist, but, the most benevolent a capitalist could be.

http://blog.mlive.com/entertainmentnow_impact/2009/01/large_alex-ross.JPG

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I'm not fond of Fullmetal Alchemist and Code Geass since both series came off as apologies for the Axis Powers, or at least Imperial Japan. Along with other things.
What? :ohmy:

Those are two of my favourite anime and I didn't notice any of that, FMA specially, where dafuq did you get that idea?

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

What? :ohmy:

Those are two of my favourite anime and I didn't notice any of that, FMA specially, where dafuq did you get that idea?

Same here. Anti-Imperialism is one of the biggest themes of FMA, particularly the way the people of Shambala are treated. It also makes no illusions about the brutal nature of being a soldier in an autocratic regime.

Code Geass is in some ways a reflection of a general notion amongst many in Japan that they have become something of a proxy state of the U.S. It also is extremely anti-imperialist and ruthlessly condemns the social darwinist philosophy of the Empire.

[reviscom1]

I hate any film set against a backdrop of a prosecuting attorney who, shock horror, has decided to move over to Defence Work! This is always portrayed as a shabby, mercenary move (usually as a prelude to the character's redemption). Colleagues rib him about "going over to the dark side" and so on. The "deal with the Devil" portrayed in Devil's Advocate is entirely based around this conflict, when the Keanu Reeves' character has to decide whether to defend a, gasp, paedophile client he knows to be guilty.

Or conversely there are films where a dignified old prosecuting attorney explains how he took a pay cut to move to prosecution work because "I was tired of having to defend assholes"

This whole archetype in fact carries the risk of making mainstream an incredibly dangerous attitude.

Why is it in any way disreputable to provide people with a fair hearing if they've been accused of a crime? Surely that's in fact a noble calling.

To look down on people who provide the accused with a Defence assumes that the accused is always guilty from the outset, which is not the case at all. To say "they're guilty, therefore they don't deserve a defence" is to get things the wrong way round. Why have a trial at all? Why not just let cops summarily execute people on the street?

I am sure if I accused one of these noble prosecutors of a crime they would insist on the right to put their side of the case. Or would everyone just go "Ah well Reviscom has accused him of a crime so he must be an asshole"?

[Guardia Rossa]

Under the Dome.

They don't even try to hide it.

[Red Red Chile]

Triumph of he Will was not my cup of tea.

Human centipede.. slightly mysogynistic.

I find a lot of the pornography being produced in San Pornando to be quite degenerate. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with pornography but the amount of 'rape porn' being produced disturbs me.

Saw 1 2,, 3,, 4 etc. Snuff porn.

[Aslan]

https://fanart.tv/fanart/tv/261690/clearlogo/the-americans-2013-51509f2875d21.png

As you can see with this logo...

I have a bone to pick with American dramas like Homeland, Scandal, and finally that piece of shit show The Americans. Partly because of how superficial these pieces of garbage are, and how easy happy they are to show a despotic position such as the president of the US as ''dramatic''.

Now the last one I have personal bone to pick because of it being made by a piece of work. Literally, this show is Tom Clancy levels of dumb. And yet people still gobbel this up! The creator of the show was a spy from the CIA, and apparently his choice of Reganite America as the setting was because:

''People were both shocked and simultaneously shrugged at the [2010] scandal because it didn't seem like we were really enemies with Russia anymore. An obvious way to remedy that for television was to stick it back in the Cold War. At first, the '70s appealed to me just because I loved the hair and the music. But can you think of a better time than the '80s with Ronald Reagan yelling about the evil empire?''

And the best part, it has a 90% on rotten tomatoes!