The civil war is something that's on the collective unconscious. There are a lot of things like this. The purpose of art is to make displays of these ideas which tap into them, what everyone is thinking but can't articulate.
But they have to do it honestly. They can't do this because political gayness and fear of actually addressing the issue. So what you get is just pointless nonsense.
I thought they intentionally made the factions absurd and avoided talking about political issues deliberately. The point was not to address the reasons for why people are thinking about it but instead to offer a warning about the senseless violence it would bring.
It was this, and the movie was more fun for it. More or less Apocalypse Now but in America. If they had clearly defined the sides nobody would be talking about the actual movie, they'd just be arguing over wherever real world politics they think it's talking about. The Hunt was a decent and fun movie, but I have never seen a single discussion about what actually happens in the movie, only about the controversy surrounding its release. And even that one felt like it pulled its punches at the very end because they were too afraid of backlash.
>"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities."
- Joseph Sobran
Am I crazy or was this movie primarily just a takedown of modern journalists? At first I thought I might be imagining it or the movie was just tone deaf, but the longer it went on the clearer it became that it's not just intentional, it's the entire plot of the goddamn movie. Some spoilers within:
>Early on in the film we watch as swarms of journalists get in super close and crowd around people as they are shot and dying. It is like when in every other film ever when a crowd of people with cell phones films some kind of tragedy and it's clearly filmed to make you question what the frick they are even doing. Throughout the movie these people who are all portrayed to be various levels of brazen, crass, and irresponsible put themselves needlessly in harms way and are often literally getting in the way of soldiers fighting. Dunsts character mentions to spaney that she can't start to question things bla bla, and we see that spaney needs to drop any pretense of humanity (and empathy) in order to do this dream job, which is narcissistic and thrilling per the main guy character. Dunst is ruthless and detached the whole movie until she's finally not, where you finally see her start to crack and actually deletes the image of their dead colleague. She then has a panic attack during the (again needlessly) close fighting at the end while all the other reporters don't care at all about all the senseless violence going on and are only excited about maybe being the ones to get the story/shot. It's essentially dunst realizing the part they, the media, play in perpetuating the violence. And the closing moments of the film it all comes together, spaeneys character becomes a full on ruthless careless piece of shit and dunst makes her first non self serving decision in years.
I didn't get that, but I am moronic. I saw some funny commentary about the movie though >basically the entire plot is a lie because it's told from the perspective of journalists
Interesting read. I don't know if it was the point of the movie, but I also thought the war journalists were portrayed cynically. Soulless husks who don't believe in anything, and claim to be passive observers, but are clearly creating fuel for the future's next political rivalries. The people who say this movie is "a love letter to the heroes of journalism" are morons who drown if something isn't surface level. Reminded me of Oliver Stone's Salvador.
Saw an ad that said it had the most realistic combat ever put onto film, superimposed over an Apache hovering about 10 meters off the ground, firing an M61 or something into a building 30 meters in front of it but the Apache is armed with an M230 and the entire point of having a helicopter is you don't have to fly between skyscrapers and risk fricking yourself to shoot a guy
Anyway, I haven't seen it yet, might see if my dad wants to go tomorrow
Oh I've no doubt about that whatsoever, I just thought it was funny that The Clive thought they had any right to tell people what realistic combat looked like
it's about immersing yourself as a neutral party into what it would be like to drive through
the fricked up war torn America and to just accept the madness. It's a beautiful film.
I'm actually surprised these kind of movies weren't made sooner in this current political climate. I mean second American civil war is not a new concept in popular culture but in this current age? I don't think it's ever been done.
I don't remember the concept being as ubiquitous before 2020 or 2019, though. Like, sure, in the most nerdy alternate history timelines, but the idea America could dissolve was regarded as being outlandish at best.
It's just another chud fantasy
No it wasn't
Everyone's scarred, the war is pointless and waste. Things should have never got this bad
It's about the same thing everything has been since 2016.
TRUMP!
Did you even watch it?
It was about little reporter hoe's fat booty
Seriously can't blame that 50 Shades chick for being all over her.
God that's hot.
mmmmmmmmmm gib enbybawd pusy
Dunst was fricking stacked and Spaeny had a proper ass. Two of the best parts from this thing
Dunst hasn't been attractive in a decade
Her face is meh these days but her breasts are gigantic
Those are saggy grandma breasts. Her grandchildren suckled upon them
What the frick did all you guys get bored of the movie already?
It was boring just like you honky
Surprised you left your marvel thread today
The civil war is something that's on the collective unconscious. There are a lot of things like this. The purpose of art is to make displays of these ideas which tap into them, what everyone is thinking but can't articulate.
But they have to do it honestly. They can't do this because political gayness and fear of actually addressing the issue. So what you get is just pointless nonsense.
I thought they intentionally made the factions absurd and avoided talking about political issues deliberately. The point was not to address the reasons for why people are thinking about it but instead to offer a warning about the senseless violence it would bring.
It was this, and the movie was more fun for it. More or less Apocalypse Now but in America. If they had clearly defined the sides nobody would be talking about the actual movie, they'd just be arguing over wherever real world politics they think it's talking about. The Hunt was a decent and fun movie, but I have never seen a single discussion about what actually happens in the movie, only about the controversy surrounding its release. And even that one felt like it pulled its punches at the very end because they were too afraid of backlash.
So what changed in our collective unconscious since the 90s?
It's what'll happen if Trump doesn't win
>"Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It's Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don't grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn't conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities."
- Joseph Sobran
Am I crazy or was this movie primarily just a takedown of modern journalists? At first I thought I might be imagining it or the movie was just tone deaf, but the longer it went on the clearer it became that it's not just intentional, it's the entire plot of the goddamn movie. Some spoilers within:
>Early on in the film we watch as swarms of journalists get in super close and crowd around people as they are shot and dying. It is like when in every other film ever when a crowd of people with cell phones films some kind of tragedy and it's clearly filmed to make you question what the frick they are even doing. Throughout the movie these people who are all portrayed to be various levels of brazen, crass, and irresponsible put themselves needlessly in harms way and are often literally getting in the way of soldiers fighting. Dunsts character mentions to spaney that she can't start to question things bla bla, and we see that spaney needs to drop any pretense of humanity (and empathy) in order to do this dream job, which is narcissistic and thrilling per the main guy character. Dunst is ruthless and detached the whole movie until she's finally not, where you finally see her start to crack and actually deletes the image of their dead colleague. She then has a panic attack during the (again needlessly) close fighting at the end while all the other reporters don't care at all about all the senseless violence going on and are only excited about maybe being the ones to get the story/shot. It's essentially dunst realizing the part they, the media, play in perpetuating the violence. And the closing moments of the film it all comes together, spaeneys character becomes a full on ruthless careless piece of shit and dunst makes her first non self serving decision in years.
I didn't get that, but I am moronic. I saw some funny commentary about the movie though
>basically the entire plot is a lie because it's told from the perspective of journalists
Very in line with nightcrawler, the journalists are beyond just being TMZ arseholes
Interesting read. I don't know if it was the point of the movie, but I also thought the war journalists were portrayed cynically. Soulless husks who don't believe in anything, and claim to be passive observers, but are clearly creating fuel for the future's next political rivalries. The people who say this movie is "a love letter to the heroes of journalism" are morons who drown if something isn't surface level. Reminded me of Oliver Stone's Salvador.
Saw an ad that said it had the most realistic combat ever put onto film, superimposed over an Apache hovering about 10 meters off the ground, firing an M61 or something into a building 30 meters in front of it but the Apache is armed with an M230 and the entire point of having a helicopter is you don't have to fly between skyscrapers and risk fricking yourself to shoot a guy
Anyway, I haven't seen it yet, might see if my dad wants to go tomorrow
Well I can't talk about realism, but the combat scenes were the best scenes.
Oh I've no doubt about that whatsoever, I just thought it was funny that The Clive thought they had any right to tell people what realistic combat looked like
like with all films now, the 90s one is far better
That must have been one of Phil Hartmann last movies
Blimps
The premise of this wears itself so thin so fast that I honestly just started getting pissed off halfway through.
it's about immersing yourself as a neutral party into what it would be like to drive through
the fricked up war torn America and to just accept the madness. It's a beautiful film.
was this movie real? it feels like some joke everyone is in on and I could be too if I was assed to look it up.
I'm actually surprised these kind of movies weren't made sooner in this current political climate. I mean second American civil war is not a new concept in popular culture but in this current age? I don't think it's ever been done.
I don't remember the concept being as ubiquitous before 2020 or 2019, though. Like, sure, in the most nerdy alternate history timelines, but the idea America could dissolve was regarded as being outlandish at best.