The last movie you saw Thread

[Beutlin]

While I understand this line of thinking, I disagree with him at a very, very fundamental level. It reminds me of people who roll their eyes at people who think that LOTR can explore meaningful, important ideas. Plenty of people dismiss it as "just" fantasy, much like he is dismissing these as "just" superhero movies.

Interesting point, yov. My response would go as follows:

There are many criticisms that can be leveled against Tolkien; some of those contain a kernel of truth, some of them certainly merit closer inspection; but the often-voiced opinion to which you allude to – that the “Lord of the Rings” is merely adolescent escapist nonsense void of any intellectual underpinnings – is simply wrong and anyone who holds that opinion has either not read LOTR or simply has not read any meaningful literature. I agree that all criticism must approach its subject in detail. I am, for example, not a fan of Edward Gibbon as an historian, but it would be ludicrous for me to argue that Gibbon could not write. Same goes for Tolkien: You can argue that he wrote bad prose, that he did not succeed in what he set out to create, etc. (I would disagree with these statements) but to argue that his writing is "just" fantasy, well, that is moronic.

On the other hand, when it comes to superhero movies, I indeed follow the notion that these movies, by and large, are “just” superhero movies (maybe with the exception of Nolan’s Batman flics, and surely 2004’s Catwoman ^^). In their contemporary iteration, they are often great popcorn-movies, smoothly designed products for a global adolescent audience. There is much to enjoy on a superficial level, but hardly anything to think (and dare I say, move). I realize, of course, that several of these films (most prominently the aforementioned X-Men films) try to convey some sort of watered-down 21st century liberal message, succeeding only on a very superficial level, while not even realizing the, some-would-say, inherent crypto-fascist aesthetics and ideals of the genre.

Mind you, over the years I spent quite some money to watch several of these films in the cinema and I would say that I did not regret the experience (that said, the last superhero film I watched was Deadpool ). But I simply do not regard these films as fine art.

[Túrin Turambar]

I agree with yov.

The first question is whether a work of fiction designed for entertainment can draw on real history? I think most people would agree the answer is “yes”. The second is, are there aspects of history which are so terrible that they should not be used in entertainment? Here, I think the answer is “no”. On the face of it, I don’t think something meant to entertain should automatically be forbidden from discussing, say, genocide.

Obviously this can be done more or less respectfully. And personally, as I said above, I think X-Men does it better than most. I don’t know how I would react to seeing the Holocaust feature in an X-Men film had I been personally affected by the Holocaust or worse, actually lived through it, but I don’t think the way that it is used diminishes its actual horror (see below for detail for those unfamiliar with the story). An important part of any villain in a story is his or her motivation, and one of the things which makes Magneto such a good villain is that he has a perfectly-understandable reason for taking the line that he does – having seen his family die in Auschwitz he is convinced humans at large will not allow mutants to live in peace but will turn on them, imprison them, and eventually, kill them. This motivates him throughout the comic books and films. It would have been different had the Holocaust been used to provide action scenes, or feel good scenes where the heroes rescue people, or something like that.

(As I side note, another criticism I have of Wonder Woman is that I found the villains very flat and forgettable)

Like yov, I also don’t think you can necessarily divide entertainment into “serious” and “designed for adolescent boys” categories. The same argument which dismisses X-Men as childish escapism next to the Lord of the Rings can also be used to dismiss the Lord of the Rings as childish escapism next to Pride and Prejudice, or Pride and Prejudice as childish escapism next to In Search of Lost Time. X-Men has as much right as any other form of entertainment to deal with serious themes.

Context for people unfamiliar with the X-Men franchise

The premise of X-Men is that certain humans have begun to develop mutations which give them effectively super-powers. These powers usually first manifest themselves in adolescence under times of great emotional stress. As a result, humanity at large needs to decide what to do with the mutants, and the mutants need to decide how to deal with normal people. The mutants have divided into two factions – one led by Charles Xavier (Professor X), called the X-Men, believes in peaceful co-existence with humans, the other, led by Erik Lensherr (Magneto), believes peaceful co-existence is impossible and the mutants will need to unite and fight humanity at large. Lensherr’s backstory is that he is a German Jew who survived the Holocaust, giving him his deep mistrust of people’s ability to accept those different from them. Here is the scene in the first X-Men film Beutlin refers to, where his power to manipulate magnetic fields (hence his nickname) first manifests itself:

[Beutlin]

I agree with yov.

The first question is whether a work of fiction designed for entertainment can draw on real history? I think most people would agree the answer is “yes”. The second is, are there aspects of history which are so terrible that they should not be used in entertainment? Here, I think the answer is “no”. On the face of it, I don’t think something meant to entertain should automatically be forbidden from discussing, say, genocide.

In my opinion, any movie with a premise like you describe in your context section above should not incorporate events such as the Shoa as plot-devices. The issue for me is not so much that it is in bad taste but that it reveals the hubris of the filmmakers who sincerely believe that their film about people with laser eyes or the touch to kill has the emotional and intellectual weight to include Auschwitz.

Obviously this can be done more or less respectfully. And personally, as I said above, I think X-Men does it better than most. I don’t know how I would react to seeing the Holocaust feature in an X-Men film had I been personally affected by the Holocaust or worse, actually lived through it, but I don’t think the way that it is used diminishes its actual horror (see below for detail for those unfamiliar with the story). An important part of any villain in a story is his or her motivation, and one of the things which makes Magneto such a good villain is that he has a perfectly-understandable reason for taking the line that he does – having seen his family die in Auschwitz he is convinced humans at large will not allow mutants to live in peace but will turn on them, imprison them, and eventually, kill them. This motivates him throughout the comic books and films. It would have been different had the Holocaust been used to provide action scenes, or feel good scenes where the heroes rescue people, or something like that.

For me, this means that the films/comics cheaply appropriate an actual historical crime of mass-genocide to justify the fictional crimes of a magnet bent on mass-genocide. And besides: Why does a Jewish orphan of the Shoa reach the conclusion that he must kill all humanity (incl. the Jews) to save his “species” which is not a species or a people to begin with, given their completely different “mutations”?

Like yov, I also don’t think you can necessarily divide entertainment into “serious” and “designed for adolescent boys” categories. The same argument which dismisses X-Men as childish escapism next to the Lord of the Rings can also be used to dismiss the Lord of the Rings as childish escapism next to Pride and Prejudice, or Pride and Prejudice as childish escapism next to In Search of Lost Time. X-Men has as much right as any other form of entertainment to deal with serious themes.

I, however, strongly believe that one should differentiate between different types of art forms; there are not just the two categories of serious art and banal entertainment, that is for sure; but superhero movies, and I actually think this is important to note for society as a whole, can overwhelmingly be categorized as derivative, superficial, and undemanding. As you said, the “childish escapism”-argument can be and is often applied to LOTR, but my counter would not be to dismiss this argument in general, but instead argue that LOTR in particular (as I stated in my previous post) is simply not “childish escapism”. There exists however a plethora of fantasy LOTR derivatives that can be classified as such (although I would agree, that any thorough criticism must not stop at labelling something “childish escapism” and end there).

Superhero films can deal with “serious themes” – a very loose term – and “The Dark Knight” showed that such a film can allude to contemporary political themes such as The War on Terror, etc. And it would be something different if the X-Men films only alluded to Magneto’s past. But featuring actual pictures and scenes set in the sites of the Holocaust merely trivializes unspeakable tragedy. It is this lack of thoughtfulness, of showing events in a summer blockbuster that, one could argue, should not even be shown in a “serious movie” (touching on the “Schindler’s List debate), that annoys.

[yovargas]

The issue for me is not so much that it is in bad taste but that it reveals the hubris of the filmmakers who sincerely believe that their film about people with laser eyes or the touch to kill has the emotional and intellectual weight to include Auschwitz.

It's not a film about people with laser eyes. It's a film about a group of people who are seen as different, and the fear people have of them because they are different, and how that fear leads to persecution. Their difference is that they have laser eyes and stuff but that's not what the X-men stories are "about".

[Beutlin]

It's a film about a group of people who are seen as different, and the fear people have of them because they are different, and how that fear leads to persecution. Their difference is that they have laser eyes and stuff but that's not what the X-men stories are "about".

I realize that the film contains some rather heavy-handed allusions to the civil-rights movement and the LGBT movement. But one of the main arguments of these movements was/is that the groups which they represent should not be feared (1), partly because from an essentialist perspective they are not different from the majority of humans (2). That is simply not the case with the “mutants”. They are different from an essentialist perspective and many of them are extremely dangerous. Thus, if one were to take the LGBT analogies of the X-Men films truly serious, one would have to assume that an alarming portion of LGBT people are a threat to humanity and plan the extermination of (I assume in this analogy) heterosexuals.

[Frelga]

Well, as a resident Jew, I can say I always admired the way Magneto's storyline was handled.

Magnificent Seven is on. I didn't realize how much like Seven Samurai it is.

[Lalaith]

Wonder Woman!



Wow! It was really good!

[Túrin Turambar]

After I was really impressed by American Sniper, I’ve been keeping an eye out for any more of Clint Eastwood’s films. I found Mystic River a bit hard going, but when I recently found Letters from Iwo Jima at the local thrift store I was curious so I bought it and watched it. And I was left wondering why it isn’t better known – even as someone who isn’t a huge follower of war films I thought it was brilliant.

It shows the Battle of Iwo Jima from the Japanese side, and I found it a remarkably-compelling story of a steadily-dwindling force of Japanese soldiers, hiding out in caves and running out of food and water, trapped between the basic desire for survival and the death-or-victory ideology of the Imperial Japanese Army. I was also really impressed by Eastwood’s attention to detail, which satisfied my (albeit fairly limited) knowledge of the Imperial Japanese Army and Shōwa-era Japan, and more importantly, apparently satisfied Japanese audiences and critics as well (and the Japanese actually speak Japanese!). Ken Watanabe’s performance as the complex General Kuribayashi is justifiably acclaimed.

It’s an example of a film which uses most of the traditional elements of its genre, but executes them perfectly. Note to war film directors – establish your characters as distinct people before sending them into battle.

I’d also make the observation that a hopeless struggle makes for a much more engaging film than a victory, but that might just be my own taste.

Trailer:

[yovargas]

That's interesting. I also thought American Sniper was very, very good. But Eastwood has two other of his late era movies on the imdb list - Million Dollar Baby and Grand Turino - and I loathed both of those. And while it was a long time ago, I remember really disliking Mystic River too. So Eastwood hit-to-fail ratio is pretty bad for me so far....

[Sunsilver]

I am not a big Eastwood fan either. The male values his movies push are archaic and glorify violence.

That said, I did like Grand Torino. It showed him helping a family from another race and culture, which came as a pleasant surprise. I'd always thought of Eastwood as being a bit of a red-neck.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

After I was really impressed by American Sniper, I’ve been keeping an eye out for any more of Clint Eastwood’s films. I found Mystic River a bit hard going, but when I recently found Letters from Iwo Jima at the local thrift store I was curious so I bought it and watched it. And I was left wondering why it isn’t better known – even as someone who isn’t a huge follower of war films I thought it was brilliant.

You probably know this but Letters from Iwo Jima was a companion piece to Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, which depicts the same battle from the American viewpoint; the two films were shot back to back.

[Inanna]

V, I did not know that! Letters from Iwo Jima is one of my favorites'; I haven't even heard of Flags of our Fathers.

[Frelga]

WW is STILL getting sold out. Granted, it would help if I didn't roll up in time to miss the trailers, but still.

[Lalaith]

You can't buy your tickets online beforehand?

I am pleased that it's still getting sold out, though.

[Primula Baggins]

Finally hope to see WW next weekend. One of the two local stadium cineplexes has gone over to 100% reserved seating, which takes a lot of the fuss out of seeing even a hit film. It doesn't even cost much more.

[Frelga]

Prim, can you reserve a specific seat, or is it first come?

You can't buy your tickets online beforehand?

I could have, but I wasn't sure if hubby would make it home from work in time.

Tonight, he wanted something lighthearted and undemanding, so we watched Trolls. It definitely fit the specs. Visually, it was a nice change from the same old Disney esthetic, although we all wondered at various points just what the artists were smoking.

[Primula Baggins]

Frelga, you can choose from what's available when you place your order, or arrive at the box office (all tickets have to be bought this way).

I'm curious about it. They also replaced all their seats with big reclining chairs, and there's a wine/beer bar. I can understand their reasoning (give people the comforts of home but with a huuuuuuge screen so they're willing to come out for it), but it still seems bizarre for a mainstream large-volume cineplex.

[yovargas]

Baby Driver currently has a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and with good reason as it's fantastic! Best movie I've seen since Get Out (you've seen Get Out, right?? ). If you're in the mood for a rollicking-good-time action movie, look no further as this one's a total blast!

[Lalaith]

I'm tucking those suggestions in the back of my mind, yovi. I rarely go to the theatre, so I wait for them to show up elsewhere. That movie looks fun!

[Frelga]

Kingsman was on TV. Blergh.