Problematic issues with iconic film stories

[3Dsf]

My all-time favorite movie is Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). For me, it is Spielberg at his best, and it captures the awe and wonder of "what's out there." I re-watch pretty much every year, and always have a warm fuzzy feeling about it. It's kind of a real-world take on the "longing for adventure", Luke Skywalker kind of thing, you know?

That is, until my wife pointed out that we're meant to empathize with what is essentially a deadbeat dad who abandoned his family to follow a feeling. Is this not a tragedy instead?

I think that both are entirely valid perspectives on the film, and reflect different priorities and different emotional responses to the film's content.

Just as so many people love Ghostbusters and the zingy all-American repartee between the characters, and other people find key aspects to certain characters and portrayals annoying or repellent.

 

[DarkHelmet]

I remember watching CE3K in the theaters and Roy leaving his family really bothered me even though I was caught up in the excitement and wonder. I was 13 and the thought of my Dad willingly leaving us in such away would be horrible. Choosing aliens over his own kids. Roy was experiencing something none of us can even comprehend since it's completely unrealistic, but how many Dads would abandon their kids like that, possibly never seeing them again.

As a Dad who could NEVER abandon my kids, part of me hopes Roy became a science experiment in his new chosen life. Same thing goes for Cooper in Interstellar. He sucked.

 

[Gregatron]

The only thing I find “problematic” with old movies is hipster weirdos who are determined to judge the past by the “standards” of the present, and/or preen, mock, and show how smart they supposedly are by poking holes in stories that people love.

It’s obnoxious clickbait-culture nonsense. “Look at how dumb you guys are for loving this movie for decades without seeing the obvious flaws that we geniuses have spotted!”

For example, the absurd notion that Indiana Jones had no effect on the ending of RAIDERS. The Nazis wouldn’t have found the Ark without his intervention (or they would have taken much longer to find it), and it got safely back into the US government’s hands (Indy’s core plot goal, remember) because he was there on the island when it was opened. If he hadn’t been there, the Nazis probably would have sent a recon party to follow up on Belloq’s group after they were all killed (and subsequently failed to make contact), and thus would have reacquired the Ark.

 

[CB2001]

My all-time favorite movie is Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). For me, it is Spielberg at his best, and it captures the awe and wonder of "what's out there." I re-watch pretty much every year, and always have a warm fuzzy feeling about it. It's kind of a real-world take on the "longing for adventure", Luke Skywalker kind of thing, you know?

That is, until my wife pointed out that we're meant to empathize with what is essentially a deadbeat dad who abandoned his family to follow a feeling. Is this not a tragedy instead?

Spielberg actually acknowledged this years later, as it was after becoming a father himself that he saw that flaw. But, looking at The Fablemans and his past statements about his family, clearly he had a flawed view of families and it being warped by his mom hooking up with another guy (so, it’s twice as much flawed because he basically blamed his dad for years for the divorce and splitting of his family in addition to writing it in a period of time where he wasn’t a father).

 

[batguy]

Why did Peter bring “knock out drugs” (300 cc’s of thorazine) on his DATE with Dana!?!!?

I've always had that filed under "plot hole" too.

The head-canon excuse is that it's Dana's stuff. IIRC the novelization of the movie said that Gozer/the building had already been screwing up her ability to sleep and she had a bunch of it on hand. Especially after the incident where she saw Zuul in the fridge and then didn't go home for 2 days.

The scene shows stuff strewn around the place after Dana is knocked out. The implication being that Peter tossed her medicine cabinet looking for something to use.

The whole thing doesn't even make sense as a date-grape joke because 300ccs would probably drop an elephant. It's like saying "I knocked her out with 15 gallons of whiskey." The number is so high that it undermines the idea of Peter carrying it.

For example, the absurd notion that Indiana Jones had no effect on the ending of RAIDERS. The Nazis wouldn’t have found the Ark without his intervention (or they would have taken much longer to find it), and it got safely back into the US government’s hands (Indy’s core plot goal, remember) because he was there on the island when it was opened. If he hadn’t been there, the Nazis probably would have sent a recon party to follow up on Belloq’s group after they were all killed (and subsequently failed to make contact), and thus would have reacquired the Ark.

It's a misunderstanding of the movie. Indy's happy ending was that he reconciled with Marion. By the last act he was pointing a grenade launcher at the Ark and saying "All I want is the girl."

 

[Laspector]

Sometimes it just amazes me, especially the "sexual trickery" aspect. Yet, if you make a movie about teenagers getting killed in the most brutal ways possible (remember, they are being killed without giving consent) it is perfectly fine.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[jts1031]

As a Dad who could NEVER abandon my kids, part of me hopes Roy became a science experiment in his new chosen life. Same thing goes for Cooper in Interstellar. He sucked.

The Interstellar one didn't bother me that much. Cooper was tricked in to going, and he really is sacrificing himself with the idea that what he's doing will save his kids. As a parent, I know I would sacrifice quite a bit if it meant the safety of my kid, even if it means I don't get to see him again, but ensuring his survival.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Sure... there is stuff in older films that is troublesome... but mostly what is wrong with older movies is modern audiences.

 

[drusselmeyer]

It's bigger than him I think that this thread is like 20/20 vision. Now, after X amount of years, you're re-thinking some aspects of your movie...and so what? It's there, it's movie history made at the time. Don't cry over spilt milk

That might be true if a film were a success, but some films were hated by audiences and are considered classics now. Sometimes older audiences see things we miss.

Tuckerman made a mind-boggling good point, but didn't even touch the darkest part of BR: Replicants are more human than human and have a four year lifespan. What do you call a 4 yr old human?

 

[Astyanax]

That might be true if a film were a success, but some films were hated by audiences and are considered classics now. Sometimes older audiences see things we miss.

Tuckerman made a mind-boggling good point, but didn't even touch the darkest part of BR: Replicants are more human than human and have a four year lifespan. What do you call a 4 yr old human?

They have four calendar years, but they have a lifetime of memories fed into them.

 

[blewis17]

Blade Runner. My favorite movie about androids, created to be slaves, that decide they don't want to be slaves anymore. A man is hired to hunt down and kill these escaped slaves, manages to rape one of them along the way, and we're supposed to root for the rapist slave hunter.

Perfect example of the protagonist not being a good guy/hero.

Is it OK in the end because he turned out to be an android/replicant himself ?! Because it would mean that Deckard wasn't really who he thought he was, but was just being manipulated by Gaff the whole time.

 

[blewis17]

I think collegehumor pointed this out but alot of older comedies have "sex without consent" or "sex through trickery" be a very big part of their "humor" (Revenge of the Nerds, Van Wilder).

You're right. I was amazed at how much of this was pervasive even in something as apparaently benign as "Grease", a beloved musical film. Totally mysoginistic.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Is it OK in the end because he turned out to be an android/replicant himself ?! Because it would mean that Deckard wasn't really who he thought he was, but was just being manipulated by Gaff the whole time.

Except now we know that he is not a replicant...again.

...but your Honor, she looked 21!

 

[TuckerMan]

Not that it's problematic, but more just an example of how quickly the Overton window shifts, The Hangover was a great movie that everyone loved, that set box office records, but it's weird now to hear Bradley Cooper, who is a big star in his own right, use homophobic slurs. His character was a bit of a sleaze-bag, so maybe that underscored that those were "bad words." But when I watched that movie again recently, that dialogue took me by surprise. I suppose 15 years is a pretty long time, but the movie still feels very modern.

 

[HeartBlade]

For example, the absurd notion that Indiana Jones had no effect on the ending of RAIDERS. The Nazis wouldn’t have found the Ark without his intervention (or they would have taken much longer to find it), and it got safely back into the US government’s hands (Indy’s core plot goal, remember) because he was there on the island when it was opened. If he hadn’t been there, the Nazis probably would have sent a recon party to follow up on Belloq’s group after they were all killed (and subsequently failed to make contact), and thus would have reacquired the Ark.

The argument is that the Nazis would have eventually found the ark but would have killed themselves in the process, either by opening it there or bringing it back to Hitler who would want to see it and getting killed in the process. The Nazis also thinking a Jewish diety would destroy its own people is silly but its not like Nazis are smart.

You're right. I was amazed at how much of this was pervasive even in something as apparaently benign as "Grease", a beloved musical film. Totally mysoginistic.

I will say that in defense of Grease, the characters are all teenagers so being crass and rude is arguably part of them growing up. Danny is a dick at the beginning implying he had sex with Sandy to improve his rep but this is sadly not uncommon for teenagers lying about their sexual encounters. They also change themselves for each other which isnt right for a healthy relationship. However, these are the struggles teens go through when they are in love so Grease might get too much hate here.

The difficult thing is, movies are fictional stories to fulfill needs like wish fulfillment and can have alot of problematic messaging as a result if you take them straight. Hitch has MC Will Smith beg for forgiveness from his love interest when she should be the one begging for forgiveness after destroying his career over her misunderstanding. The Revenge of the Nerds "pranks" is wish fulfillment of nerds beating their jock bullies by humiliating them and taking their girlfriends although depicting women as a prize to be won is problematic. However, a non-problematic film where everyone is kind to each other and responds to issues in a mature way wouldnt make for a great film 90% of the time.

 

[robn1]

I remember watching CE3K in the theaters and Roy leaving his family really bothered me even though I was caught up in the excitement and wonder. I was 13 and the thought of my Dad willingly leaving us in such away would be horrible. Choosing aliens over his own kids. Roy was experiencing something none of us can even comprehend since it's completely unrealistic, but how many Dads would abandon their kids like that, possibly never seeing them again.

As a Dad who could NEVER abandon my kids, part of me hopes Roy became a science experiment in his new chosen life. Same thing goes for Cooper in Interstellar. He sucked.

I've always seen it the other way. Neary was deeply troubled by visions he couldn't understand and needed help, and his family abandoned him. His wife cared more about what the neighbors would think than about what her husband was going through, she was one of the coldest most heartless bitches I've ever seen in a movie.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Blade Runner. My favorite movie about androids, created to be slaves, that decide they don't want to be slaves anymore. A man is hired to hunt down and kill these escaped slaves, manages to rape one of them along the way, and we're supposed to root for the rapist slave hunter.

Perfect example of the protagonist not being a good guy/hero.

I’m one of those fans in the minority who finds the characters and overall story of Blade Runner not very compelling…ever since I first saw the movie, back in the 1980’s, I have had a hard time committing to actually watching it, beginning to end.

It’s the reality of the “setting” of the movie that is compelling to me (the amazing design work and practical effects, etc.) but nothing more…Deckard and the rest of the story…I could take it or leave it.

A cool gun design weirded by a fairly bland protagonist and a cool line about “…tears in the rain…” from the antagonist…but other than that…I don’t know.

 

[Ron]

The only thing I find “problematic” with old movies is hipster weirdos who are determined to judge the past by the “standards” of the present, and/or preen, mock, and show how smart they supposedly are by poking holes in stories that people love.

It’s obnoxious clickbait-culture nonsense. “Look at how dumb you guys are for loving this movie for decades without seeing the obvious flaws that we geniuses have spotted!”

For example, the absurd notion that Indiana Jones had no effect on the ending of RAIDERS. The Nazis wouldn’t have found the Ark without his intervention (or they would have taken much longer to find it), and it got safely back into the US government’s hands (Indy’s core plot goal, remember) because he was there on the island when it was opened. If he hadn’t been there, the Nazis probably would have sent a recon party to follow up on Belloq’s group after they were all killed (and subsequently failed to make contact), and thus would have reacquired the Ark.

A relative of mine hit me with the same criticism and I gave the same rebuttal you did. Nevertheless, even if I conceded that it's true that the whole adventure ultimately didn't matter, it doesn't make it any less compelling or the characters any less entertaining or the movie to not be a masterclass in film making.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

The problem is. Life is messy. Problematic opinions and actions is part of life. The nasty person often comes out on top while the good guy/girl is destroyed/killed.

Sometimes, if it is a period piece and you want to portray that realistically will mean you have people with completely different morals and opinions, but just because they are there or uttered or shown by characters doesn't mean it is the message trying to be sent or endorsed - or if it is an older film, just understand that people were different then and the movie is now a window into that time.

People need to get into their heads that bad people / bad words and language / racism and sexism / bad actions is a part of life and even "good" people have flaws and it is no grounds to cancel something over that. The fact movies and people can get cancelled now is just the ultimate form of oppression and social hypocricy. It needs to stop and those types of people should be ignored.

In the words of early internet etiquette: "Don't feed the trolls!"

 

[Captain Dunsel]

“Problematic” has become one of the most misapplied and tiresome contemporary terms out there. It often means taking things out of the context of when they were made and applying whatever the current way of thinking may be; rightly or wrongly.