You Philistines, it's a great movie and ITS FREE! Come On!
Results 1 to 13 of 13
Beasts Of No Nation
Anyone see this yet and want to discuss it with me?
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
You Philistines, it's a great movie and ITS FREE! Come On!
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
well I do like Idris Elba a lot... But I'm busy right now.
What could honestly be more important than entertaining me? I'm me
Come little children, I'll take thee away, into a land of enchantment, come little children, the times come to play, here in my garden of magic.
"I'm tired of this "isn't humanity neat," bullshit. We're a virus with shoes."-Bill Hicks.
I feel the Bern and I need penicillin
I started watching it, but had to stop, so I only got to the middle of the first act where they have to flee the village and he has to stay behind.
i watched it when it came out, its a well done and visually striking movie but i had a hard time getting into it. even from the beginning, the 'generic african setting' bugged me and i felt like it never really got beyond that. i realize its based on a book, but i think the choice to make this story into a movie speaks to typical hollywood/western narratives of africa as miserable, violent and always having war after war after war with atrocities, child soldiers, etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0fde8b0cc9519
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
While visually films very greatly, in terms of setting and themes even critically-acclaimed and otherwise artistically good movies pick from a limited set, probably enough to fill a hat and draw slips of paper out of. I mean, try finding a critically-acclaimed films that involves Manila that isn't about the all-pervasive poverty of the place. Even the local films do.
Visually striking is the best one can hope for tbh
I ALMOST DIED OF A DRUG OVERDOSE BECAUSE OF ANARCHISM AND PUNK ROCK
It's an interesting view. I've still not seen the whole thing and I've also not read that article, but I think the issue goes beyond Hollywood. Hollywood wouldn't fund it; no studio would pick it up. It had no official Hollywood financial or practical backing. It was also shot in Ghana, so the landscape you see is actually Africa.
Really, I think this film is a good example of how the concept of 'Hollywood' unconsciously influences narrative forms. When we talk about 'Hollywood' what are we actually saying? Something that is superficial? A caricaturisation? Western-centric world view? Formulaic three-act structure? Probably all of these things. This really means that the problem of 'Hollywood' goes beyond the practical industry, but actually defines the prevailing principles of contemporary film narrative and practice. Basically every film that's made is 'Hollywood', even those that have nothing to do with Hollywood as an industry.
I also think the issue is that filmmakers are only really interested in stories that conform to the principles of entertainment (this is true whether they are in Hollywood or not). This means that stories about violence, misery, war and chold soldiers is going to appeal to someone who wants to write an appealing, dramatic script. Unfortunately there are less stories of this kind to plunder from Western Europe or North America. We end up with real, significant events being portrayed to create this hyperreal interpretation of Africa. It's a postmodern catch-22.
Because these things are what are important to filmmakers, right? These are the stories people want to make. That's the problem with social realism, it creates this hyperreality of working class life to the point that this is how people outside of those communities -- and even those within -- start to view them as. That's why I think films like Fish Tank and the original UK series of Shameless were particularly good at attacking that view of working class life. The Rocket is sort of another example.
definitely, but i don't think this is a very good reason to not be critical of it. though i'd disagree somewhat, a lot of movies tackle subject matter that isn't poverty/war/whatever in a western context so i don't think its too much of a stretch to ask why this can't be the case in other contexts. there's certainly no shortage of great books or stories that could be adapted so that's not an issue. i think it comes down to the way africa is viewed in the west
well yeah thats why i said hollywood/western; it may not be a hollywood production but it fits within the same context of filmmaking and stories that are told. while the film is ghana, the country is never identified. the book itself is from a nigerian author and uses nigerian culture/language in a similar way. in both cases though we're left with the 'generic african setting' i mentioned. few non-ghanians are going to recognize the language or culture, so it again fits into a larger narrative of 'how africa is' divorced from any real time, place or people.Originally Posted by the feral underclass
there are plenty of successful movies that don't have violence, misery or child soldiers or use some elements of those in a more subtle way. especially for, as you say, a non-hollywood film there are tons of independent movies now that are focused entirely on characters and stories and some of them even do well. we could say its understandable netflix wanted something especially bombastic for their first feature film, but i think that leads us again to the same questions:
these aren't 'real, significant events' though. this is a story, based on real things absolutely but not actually about them. there's no shortage of real stories of this kind, which would place them in a specific context, etc so why do we again and again see 'generic african setting' with 'generic african war' with 'generic african people?' i think it is part of a long history of simplifying the continent into a monolith 'other,' the 'heart of darkness' stuck in a static, violent, savage past.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
You seem to have taken what I said as some kind of challenge. I'm not asking you to defend your point-of-view, I was just telling you that I agree.
read the tone wrong then, sorry.
'heavens above, how awful it is to live outside the law - one is always expecting what one rightly deserves.'
petronius, the satyricon
Without having seen the film, what I find disgusting about many movies of its kind, Hotel Rwanda, Blood Diamond, etc. is that such movies portray the horrors like "Oh, look at the evil humans are capable of, why are humans so cruel"? And other such grand claims. As though the context of the events boils down to some spontaneous act of cruelty.
The problem is not that they make Africa out to be a miserable place. The problem is that they portray the misery in such a perverse way that it's supposed to give us a message about the "demons" which are inside all of us. The horrible atrocities of the African continent are trivialized, converted into some cheap literary playground for the sentimental rejuvenation of the western philistine.
Take Hotel Rwanda, by far the most disgusting, worthless piece of shit film I can presently think of. Not only are all the most hypocritical cliche's about post globalization, charity oriented human rights portrayed, the sickening part of hte film is how we western observers are meant to understand the atrocity in terms of charity. Many stupid leftists love this film because it portrays the western powers 'negatively" and gives a 2 second backstory to the origins of hte conflict between the Hutu's an the Tutsi's.
In reality, western powers are negatively portrayed because they did not intervene. Of course western intervention to stop the genocide would not be opposed, but that isn't the point: In the ideological context of the film, the message is "Oh, you careless westerners, can't you see that we so desperately need you?" and this human-rights bullshit echoes throughout virtually all US backed wars of the postmodern era. The message of the film glorifies the dependency the "child like" Africans have with western powers.
You want to know what's so fucking disgusting about the film though? The film is supposed to teach us about the dangers of "intolerance" and "hate", as though the genocide happened because the Hutus didn't forgive the Tutsi's for what happened decades ago. We are absolutley given no fucking insight into the actual events following Rwanda's de-colonization that led to the genocide. And that is ultimately what is fucking sick about these films - the message is "Oh yeah, we were bad back in those days of colonialism, but then we left the Africans to their devices and look what inhumanity they are capable of, oh, it's probably because we disrupted the natural harmony of their society and left scars". No, none of Africa's problems are because of colonialism but neo-colonialism. Every possible strive for actual independence, and I mean actual self-sustaining independence, the building of modern infrastructure, cutting off economic dependency from western powers was made impossible.
No, this genocide was absolutely a product of Rwanda's relationship to international politics and a power struggle between the Anglo oriented Tutsis and the French backed Hutus. The Rwandan government released documents showing that the French backed and trained Hutu militias and practically help orchestrate the power grab to re-assert influence in the region. Like people are literally so stupid - most of the raw materials in the world come from the African continent, and you think these are just some savages fighting about nothing?
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
