Problematic issues with iconic film stories

[Too Much Garlic]

Maybe that's the point. Stories should be allowed to deal with things that are beyond the norms, illegal, uncomfortable and even have the characters get away with it and the people around them be okay with it and even condone it. Movies should be able to hold up a mirror to the dark sides of society and the hypocricy of it.

And it is not a point of whether the movie or filmmaker condones it or disapproves of it: it is up to the viewer to determine for themselves if an action was right or wrong.

But to stop art from showing the dark sides of humanity is wrong.

 

[Cephus]

He absolutely, 1000% sleeps with her on the football field. Even back when I first saw the film probably around, like, 1990 or so, that stuck out to me as "off" about it. It in no way holds up today. The rest of the film is often funny, but there's a lot of stuff that just...isn't for modern audiences.

But that's the thing. It isn't the film's job to appeal to modern audiences, it's modern audience's job to deal with the reality of the film. The film isn't going to change. Anyone who can't accept the film as a product of the time in which it was made has problems.

 

[batguy]

The poison is in the dosage.

When one rock band starts wearing spandex and hairspray, it's creative.

When every band is doing it for a decade straight, it's oppressive.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

So is life. That's why we all fight to make it better. Not by forgetting or hiding or banning the past, but by learning from it and evolving from it, for better or for worse.

So... things that are troublesome... should not be hidden, just because some may not agree with it and it should still be able to be shown in new stuff because the world isn't black and white and just one POV, but varied, colorful and at times horrible.

 

[Sluis Van Shipyards]

Just a reminder that not too long ago (last ten years when the Me Too thing went nuts) people tried to cancel Van Halen's Hot for Teacher video. A video that has not aired on a TV (unless played on Youtube) since the 1980s. I remember watching a news channel show with a panel of women and they were talking about a high school teacher sleeping with a male student. They were all like "OMG it's the worst thing in human history!!!" and the guy on the panel was like "It's not right, but as a former teenage male, I would have be ecstatic if that happened to me." They were horrified and he was like "It's different for boys and it's a real thing that teenage boys hope happens to them. There's a song about it!" It doesn't mean it's right, but it happens. Most of my highschool teachers were nightmare fuel, so it would have been horrifying for me.

 

[LeoCor Replicas]

Yeah was more a joke. I never noticed til my buddy pointed it out.

He went further “why does he even have that on him? Peter doesn’t strike me as a guy who takes work home with him”

The comic "Ghostbusters: Year One" by IDW reveals that Dana had thorazine as a prescription for chronic hiccups. Bit of a stretch, though thorazine is used for that purpose, so I'm down with it. Much better than the idea that Peter brought a sedative on a date.

 

[AnubisGuard]

But to stop art from showing the dark sides of humanity is wrong.

Yup. We're in a newly puritanical era where a good number of creatives are absolutely terrified of anyone coming away with a "bad" or "wrong" interpretation of their work. It's been leeching into our culture slowly over the past decade plus; I think I first noticed with the backlash to the "red pill" movement (e.g. the Matrix is made by trans people, you're using the metaphor wrong, how dare you you're not allowed). It hijacked Bojack Horseman in season 5, where they devoted a major storyline to berating the audience for interpreting Bojack's character in a way they didn't intend. Now it feels like everything has been sterilized to prevent independent interpretation from happening at all. It's like writers think we're all children and they have to lock us in playpens for our own good.

Edit: Here's a comment from six years ago, on the old AV Club comments section, that I had saved. Seems as relevant now as then:

 

[batguy]

The comic "Ghostbusters: Year One" by IDW reveals that Dana had thorazine as a prescription for chronic hiccups. Bit of a stretch, though thorazine is used for that purpose, so I'm down with it. Much better than the idea that Peter brought a sedative on a date.

No need for a hiccups explanation. Just call it a persistent sleep problem. It's not much of a stretch to think Zuul/Gozer was affecting her sleep for a while before Zuul actually posessed her. And then there was that incident with the fridge where she ended up terrified.

The sheer amount of the drug (that Peter gave her) is too high though. There is room to debate whether it was a subtle date-grape joke, but I really don't think a murder joke is plausible.

 

[TimDRX]

Yup. We're in a newly puritanical era where a good number of creatives are absolutely terrified of anyone coming away with a "bad" or "wrong" interpretation of their work. It's been leeching into our culture slowly over the past decade plus; I think I first noticed with the backlash to the "red pill" movement (e.g. the Matrix is made by trans people, you're using the metaphor wrong, how dare you you're not allowed). It hijacked Bojack Horseman in season 5, where they devoted a major storyline to berating the audience for interpreting Bojack's character in a way they didn't intend. Now it feels like everything has been sterilized to prevent independent interpretation from happening at all. It's like writers think we're all children and they have to lock us in playpens for our own good.

Edit: Here's a comment from six years ago, on the old AV Club comments section, that I had saved. Seems as relevant now as then:

View attachment 1885376

Hah that just came up in an excellent FD Signifier video a few weeks back!

(Can skip to the twist ending at 53 mins if you don't wanna watch the whole thing)

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Regarding Forbidden Planet. I am pretty certain that the predatory, exploitative and manipulative actions from the crew towards the young innocent woman was seen as bad behaviour even then. They are even reprimanded for it in the movie, if I remember correctly. Though... reprimanded by someone in authority who also wanted the girl, so again... a little sketchy.

I think it's a sci-fi play on how some sailors reacted when coming to a destination after a long trip and finally seeing the opposite sex again.

 

[AnubisGuard]

I think it's a sci-fi play on how some sailors reacted when coming to a destination after a long trip and finally seeing the opposite sex again.

The movie is also explicitly about the darkest impulses that lurk in human nature, a fact Morbeus is blind to. Probably willfully so since he kept his daughter in a state of artificial innocence. No surprise then that the crew creeps on symbolic Eve in a fake garden of Eden.

 

[batguy]

I think that's a lot of it. The servicemen making booze and creeping on the girl were not just in there to fill screen time. That stuff was thematically part of the story. And the commanding officer tries to be above the fray but he succumbs too.

 

[AJK001]

Not that it will ever happen but I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if someone from now went back to the 1950's and see how they would fit in. I can just see the first time they complain about something that is normal to that time and what people would think of them. I was born in the late 50's and grew up in the 60's and 70's and this was basically the norm. I really dislike when people try and shoehorn in current beliefs to something from 70 or 80 years ago.

 

[joberg]

But that's the thing. It isn't the film's job to appeal to modern audiences, it's modern audience's job to deal with the reality of the film. The film isn't going to change. Anyone who can't accept the film as a product of the time in which it was made has problems.

I agree 100%...but it's always very difficult to walk into someone shoes (or to understand a past societal norm for that matter) without judging it from where we're standing now, in the present. To renege History is a big mistake, of course. It's been the narrative for far too long now.
To cancel, suppress and blatantly lie about the past is a very dangerous endeavor

 

[batguy]

Ahh, but what is "lying"? Storytelling is lying.

Indiana Jones taught me that you can get beaten 3/4ths to death and get up & shake it off. You can murder bad guys point-blank with a pistol. Knock them off the road to their deaths. Run over them with a truck. It's okay because you are still the hero. Hey, it's only a movie.

Indy also taught me some other things. You can be the good guy while you're robbing ancient temples of artifacts and smuggling them out to your own country. And you can break the heart of an uncomfortably-young girl. Today this stuff looks more dubious than ever but we roll with it because it was the 1930s.

Where do you draw the line between "Hey, it's only a movie" (we still forgive it today) versus "it was the 1930s" (we think differently now)?

Some of the guys that Indy shoots/kills still look uncomfortably like cold-blooded murder even today. (See also: Shredder's end in the 1990 TMNT movie.) On the other hand, in modern times the Taliban destroyed some priceless Buddhist statues - I think it would have been justifiable to smuggle those things out of their country to protect them (if it had been practical).


Creative work is all about dealing in shades of gray.

 

[Cephus]

I agree 100%...but it's always very difficult to walk into someone shoes (or to understand a past societal norm for that matter) without judging it from where we're standing now, in the present. To renege History is a big mistake, of course. It's been the narrative for far too long now.
To cancel, suppress and blatantly lie about the past is a very dangerous endeavor

No, it's very easy to judge them. They're the ones not doing what you're complaining about. In fact, they are the only ones doing exactly what you are complaining about because they can't judge movies and TV shows by the time they were made.

Anyone who can't grow up and deal with actual reality needs professional help.

 

[The Goon]

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.

I'm sitting in the seat next to you at the meetings. I went to see Blade Runner on opening night here in southern California with some friends back in 1982, and was really looking forward to it...until it ended. Walking through the parking lot after the movie I mentioned that the story made no sense whatsoever to me, and my friends immediately began trying to explain it to me. We went to get something to eat, and the whole time we sat at the table bickering about this scene and that scene, everyone with their own interpretations, and by the time we had finished eating my friends realized that they also had no idea what the story was, or who were the "good" guys or the "bad" guys, and half of them were convinced Deckard was the main "bad" guy. I even bought the "super duper" five disc Collector's Edition that came in the silver plastic briefcase, hoping one of the versions might explain whatever I was missing...they didn't. So, now, whenever someone mentions Blade Runner and the inevitable fan-boy conversation ensues, I just nod my head silently like I know what the hell they're talking about.

 

[TimDRX]

Hahah I was talking with someone about The Batman the other day, and after disagreeing on the rationale behind the car chase scene I realized they got a totally different impression of the movie than me.

Spoiler: The Batman ending stuff

This was a movie about Bruce fundamentally failing to be Batman. He's not helping, he's just working his anger out on poor people. It isn't until he's confronted with the Riddler's follower quoting his "I'm Vengeance" thing back to him that he realizes how how much harm he's been doing.

The car chase was in my view meant to be a jarring moment where you see how out of control this version of Batman is - he's instigating a wildly dangerous situation that puts a ton of innocent bystanders in danger because he's just been shot and is pissed off.

I've seen people get so defensive over this scene, trying to frame out a scenario where it's justified behavior on Batman's part but like... it's clearly not, right? You're supposed to think this is a bad thing Batman is doing. I cannot wrap my head around any other interpretation of this scene.

Something I thought was the entire thesis statement of the movie just did not appear to them, I guess? But then I'm left wondering how we both enjoyed it since I don't know what you even get from it if not that Vengeance reveal...

 

[batguy]

The Batman -

I think the car chase is sort of a 'Scarface' or 'Falling Down' moment. The movie just confronts you with the brutality of what's happening and does not take an obvious moral position. Viewers can cheer for it, be troubled by it, or anything in between. The filmmaker does have a position but he is playing it with enough restraint that the viewers don't have to agree to enjoy the show.


Blade Runner -

IMO the 2049 sequel was arguably better than the original. Fight me.

 

[AnubisGuard]

IMO the 2049 sequel was arguably better than the original. Fight me.

Completely agreed. Can't stand the original, love the sequel.