I dont think it was for incels really. Since Fargo some people have called the Coen Bros stuff nihilistic. I dont agree with that, but see it more for something like this. I dont know if Id call Joker nihilistic, because I dont think anything done thematically was intentional.
Its a pretty good script because it copies some very good scripts, but its just like asking me to paint the Mona Lisa.
Hype! Rude hue hue
Thatâs a good point. Maybe just me but if you could deliver a well-made painting with some high-concept element added, I would want to see your version of the Mona Lisa.
Yeah I donât expect this film to get universal plaudits, so Iâm not surprised to hear that thereâs counterpoint incoming, but damn Iâm pleased with what I got.
By the way, it hits that sweet spot of âvery darkâ with ânot too dark to rewatch,â which is always a nice bonus. Iâm certain Iâll be rewatching this.
Yes please
This Lanthimos Stone thing is the best thing to happen to cinema since Scorsese DeNiro.
Hereâs my caveat. I think the first 2/3rds of the film are good. Theyâre dark and it gets darker with every scene. Which is should do, itâs a road trip movie where you start out naĂŻve and you slowly go deeper and deeper, until you run into Jesse Plemons and then you realize youâre truly in a world of shit.
I did the like confusion about who were the Western Forces and who were Unionists(?). Itâs all a bit confusing which seems on purpose and to further the narrative. The movie isnât going to dissect why America broke up or that Conservatives are bad. Theyâre just photo journalists travelling the hellscapes that theyâve travelled before but now that happens to be New York and Pennsylvania backroads and small towns.
My complaints for the first two thirds are small. Durstâs world weary shell shock is manifested in the worst pay possible, in being a frowny- faced sourpuss. She gets 2 scenes where sheâs showing emotion, otherwise itâs her with long staring shots in the camera. Second why are snipers wearing dyed neon colored hair? Itâs a small point.
Up until that point theyâve showing war but theyâve shown the consequences of it, in unarmed solders being executed, looters hung up and shot, a shot soldier bleeding out while his friends frantically try to save their own lives.
All the way up to the Jesse Plemons scene, which was is genuinely the most tense pee yourself inducing scene Iâve scene, the movie has kept with the theme of human drama that surrounds war.
As that car broke through the tension in that scene, somehow it broke Garland as well because the movie then turns into "Wouldnât it be sexy to watch the military assault the White House?
So the vibes changed, now weâre getting gorgeous shots of tanks riding over cars, helicopters firing rockers up close and personal into building showing their awesome power. You see a teams of soldiers maneuver to take out a fortified position. You get a lot of the sexy military yelling and handwaving. You get the breeching a door and shouting out positions. Itâs so much about how amazing military action as action is. Itâs so far from the horrors of war tone earlier. The tonal shift even manifests itself into the photojournalists who become miniature embodiments of Jake Gyllenhaal from Nightcrawler.
Spoiler: One thing that would have make the end a lot better is when they shoot up the President limo and the people come out, have it to be kids and a mom so you definitely get a stronger impression they just shot the Presidentâs family and kids on the streets.
I actually do understand where youâre coming from there re: the final act, though I find that the vibe shift was fairly appropriate. But I get it if thatâs someoneâs least favorite part.
Classic movie
In this movie, is the President a conservative or liberal?
It doesnât really say. The only knowledge anyone mentions was that he âgiftedâ himself a third term
I think thatâs a real demarcation line of whether the movie could ever work âin our worldâ and making it ambiguous is strange. If he says itâs a liberal president, itâs defying reality, as it would never happen without a prior precedent. If he says itâs a conservative president, itâs a comment on what Trump could be trying to do. Would you describe the people trying to do the overthrow as conservative or liberal? If you canât discern the presidentâs views, maybe you can discern the views of the ones going against him to get an idea of what his views might be.
I get itâs supposed to be in the future, but itâs really not.
It also tells us he disbanded the FBI and ordered airstrikes on US citizens.
Like, my takeaway is that heâs a Trump redux of sorts, but that reflects my bias. I think the audience is simply guided to map their political enemy onto him. As silly as it feels to me that conservatives believe that any Dem POTUS would stage the sort of authoritarian takeover as seems to have happened in this movie world, thereâs no question that right-wingers fearmonger about that very thing.
I think Garland manages to thread the difficult needle here of making the President an implied authoritarian villain without identifying his politics exactly.
But what about the people trying to take him down? Are there any proclivities?
For recent combinations, Coogler-Jordan and Peele-Kaluuya have it beat
Talking about this with another film nerd and we decided Sorcerer has maybe one of the worst movie titles of all time.
I mean the Jesse Plemons character codes heavily as right-wing, but as you keep running into fighters itâs often not even clear which side theyâre fighting on. Unless Iâm forgetting, Plemonsâs affiliation in the war remains unspoken. Itâs also implied that thereâs more than one rebellious faction (Florida is mentioned as being against the feds but not part of the CA-TX alliance).
Iâll put this in spoilers because of something I read:
Could you tell what the political beliefs were of the person who actually shot the president?
No, thatâs unclear too. They donât put a good light on the President or any of the fighters. They donât try to create a âgoodâ side, and youâre really never looking at anything through a combatantâs POV (except sort of literally, I guess, at one point).
