Tweets Bret Easton Ellis, linking to...
Why #ThreeBillboards has become the villain of this awards season https://t.co/EWm1oR4wNM
— Vulture (@vulture) January 11, 2018
११ जानेवारी, २०१८
"This kind of ideology is another example of how people don't care about movies or art anymore. Movies should only be made by a PC democracy!"
"It will hopefully not take years for a generation to rid itself of this kind of mindless, regressive, identity politics groupthink. Resist."
Tweets Bret Easton Ellis, linking to...
Tweets Bret Easton Ellis, linking to...
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
But it’s also because, for those of us prone to treating awards ceremonies as referendums on the state of social progress,
Gamergate lives on.
Not every film can have Morgan Freeman in it.
- james james
This is odd. I had just read through viewer reviews and this movie was either loved or hated and several said it was stridently left wing. The article sounds like an argument of purity in the party: not left wing enough for some.
Handy Hollywood Casting Guide:
You want a Black Actor Who Conveys the Desired Feeling of Cautious Racial Optimism?
Morgan Freeman.
You want a Black Actor Who Conveys the Desired Feeling of Black Anger at an Unjust Racial World?
Samuel l. Jackson.
You want a Black Actor Who Conveys the Desired Feeling of Ambiguous Racial Meaning?
Forest Whitaker.
You want a Black Actor Who Somehow Conveys the Desired Feeling of all three?
Laurence Fishburne.
You want a Black Actor Who Conveys the Desired Feeling of Cautious Racial Optimism, but isn't Morgan Freeman?
Viola Davis.
- james james
To be clear, one reviewer wrote that quote -- Ira Madison III. Not reviewers. If you're going to quote someone, give them the shoutout.
The most interesting word in the Madison III quote is "unearned." That's the nod to identity politics. It doesn't matter if your mission is moral or your methods are sane. All that matters is the degree to which your identity earns you the right to pronounce.
The Enlightenment is over.
Doesn't Ira Madison III sound like the perfect Woke name?
The movie simply sucked. It made Billy Jack look thoughtful and nuanced. These people are truly goose-stepping morons.
In the future, thanks to CGI technology, all movies WILL feature Morgan Freeman.
And all restaurants will be Taco Bell.
I can't figure out what the heck is controversial about the movie from reading the reviews. My take away is that, like all award winning movies these days, it probably sucks. But that is a simple rule of thumb, and frankly, I don't care.
In the future everyone will be a racist for 15 minutes.
Hopefully your racist 15 minutes will not coincide with your celebrity 15 minutes.
But it probably will.
The Revolution always eats its own.
As we watch television and contemporary movies we know that 40% of Americans are black, 35% gay, 15% in transition, 55% muslim and the rest white nationalists and corporate criminals. Any deviation from these obvious demographics is racist.
I don't understand who is mad at whom or why and I'm a bit too lazy this morning to dig down into it.
But I will share that I've sat through trailers for that movie a couple times and while I do like Frances McDormand, the film looks wretched ~ heavy handed, preachy and needlessly profane.
I find the Ellis tweet confusing in the extreme. Firstly, movies have NEVER been made by a democracy, PC or otherwise. In the ur-times of cinema films were the product of a single artistic will, one person who scripted the scenes, arranged the lighting, focused the lens, cranked the camera, and did the darkroom and editing work. Georges Méliès is the archetype of those earliest "movie moguls". Subsequently, the chain of command became more complex, but never more "democratic". In the end — then, now, and forever forward — the power resides in the money man. A few directors are notable for being auteurs, processers of the filmmakers' grail, artistic control, men such as Malick and Kubrick, but their output is small, and all artistic ambitions are contingent on the budget, which is not typically in the gift of the guy beside the camera. I have no idea exactly what Ellis had in mind when he typed out his tweet, but I strongly suspect his vision bears no more resemblance to any form of democracy than Orwell's MiniTrue. I have also noticed that lefties tend to conflate democracy with their own desires, so how democratic could a movie-making process that satisfied Bret Easton Ellis be? Not very, I surmise.
Furthermore, on what planet does the concept of Political Correctness exclude "identity politics groupthink"? Perhaps on Kepler-16b, but not this one.
Movie reviewers that hate movies are always amusing.
Funny, I looked at the movie as just a way to go after rednecks and the Catholic Church. Mostly in convoluted ways.
Racist cop: "Red?" "What kind of name is that?" "Are you a communist?" "You know they kill gays in Cuba."
Red: "You must be thinking of Wyoming."
"Three Billboards" is, essentially, an homage to the great Flannery O'Conner, and a very successful and splendid homage at that. I believe that Ms. O'Connor would have approved of the movie.
To those who saw the movie (and liked it): did you see the brief sly mention of O'Connor in one of the movie's early scenes?
It wasn't leftist, not by a long shot; and it wasn't anti-Catholic and didn't go after rednecks.
If you were familiar with the writing of Flannery O'Connor you would know and understand what this movie was really about, and that it had great compassion for its protagonists.
For beginners: start with "The Violent Bear it Away" "Wise Blood," and "A Good Man is Hard to Find."
O'Connor wrote simply but profoundly and with great compassion about the human condition. "Three Billboards" is a successful effort at translating her views (and literary style) to the screen.
Also, it's useful to know that Flannery O'Connor was both southern and a devout Catholic. Her fiction is infused with her southern-ness and Catholic spirituality and, not least, by the quiet perceptive humor that is a product of the two.
hey elevate Three Billboards to the bruising, absurdist standard of O’Connor or some grand Southern Gothic play, all the while maintaining an honest an unpatronizing vision of middle America.
There’s your racism!
A character we had never seen before or will see again, a priest from the town's Catholic Church, goes to McDormand's character's house to ask her to take down the billboards. Does she tell the priest that she appreciates the work that he is doing, but will have to decline? Or something along those lines? No. She uses his presence as a spring board to go on about the pedophilia scandal.
McDormand's character was deeply troubled and her remarks to the priest were meant to show this about her. She was not meant to be sympathetic in this scene and you were not meant to sympathize with her remark. The character undergoes a transformation toward redemption which is not completed but is indicated in the movie's final scene.
And that ending to the movie -- partial redemption, moving toward it but not yet arriving at it -- is pure Flannery O'Connor.
So, when does "All in the Family" get the "Dukes of Hazard" treatment ... ?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा