I think one major problem with SPR criticism is that many people assume it’s an anti-war movie. It isn’t. It may depict war as horrible, but it doesn’t depict it as wrong, or as futile, or as unnecessary. He may show thousands of soldiers dying on the beaches of Normandy, but at no point does he imply that they shouldn’t have landed there.
I don’t see why Spielberg needs to identify with a Jewish character/make him more likely to survive, just because he himself is Jewish. Plus, the Christ story is so common in our culture–just because he’s Jewish, he can’t recreate that in his films? I’m not seeing the self hatred here.
I’m sure some people thought Time Bandits was for the kiddies…
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
You should understand that it doesn’t matter how you see him coming across, lissener. Unless Spielberg comes out and acknowledges that he is a self-hating Jew, you’re just a big silly for talking about anything other than the artist’s explicit statements on how we should interpret his work. (Thank you, Baldwin and Yookeroo, for helping me understand and correct my previous foolishness!)
[/QUOTE]
I never said anything resembling “you’re just a big silly for talking about anything other than the artist’s explicit statements on how we should interpret his work.”
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
Ah. I guess by your quote here, you mean to indicate that for a given work of art, we’re only entitled to discuss those influences that the artist explicitly (and consciously) acknowledges.
:shrug: I’m afraid that I have to disagree. I think unconscious influences, especially when dark in nature, are what make art interesting. If it’s a good piece, the artist may be the last person you want to listen to for the “correct” interpretation.
[/QUOTE]
All correct Randians reject psychology, as Rand taught, including the subconscious. 
[QUOTE=Sockmunkey]
Born a weasel? You are clearly a selfish, sneaky, SOB.
[/QUOTE]
Being able to weasel out of things is what separates us from the animals. Except the weasel.
[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
All correct Randians reject psychology, as Rand taught, including the subconscious.
[/QUOTE]
Really? Not being a Randian myself, I’ve never heard this. I trust you can provide a cite?
[QUOTE=Yumblie]
This is just a general theme and not a specific movie, but I’m finding it harder and harder to get behind the “predators are evil” theme. In pretty much every kids movie that stars animals, there’s inevitably a conflict where predators are doing what they’re naturally supposed to do and hunting other animals. Our stars are of course the noble prey who outwit and defeat the evil predators. But we gloss over the fact that predators need to hunt and eat prey or they’ll die. They don’t have a choice in the matter; if they don’t eat other creatures they’ll starve. Nature is cruel like that, but in movie-land nature is pure and noble, except when it isn’t. It makes for an easy plot device so it’ll continue to be done, but it’s still a bit disturbing.
[/QUOTE]
So what you’re saying is that the movie reinforces the unfortunate notion many women have that, no matter how rotten a man is, and how bad all her friends and family think he is for her, her love can change him.
Is it just me? Everyone loves Tolkien, but inside, “The Hobbit” (cartoon movie) always bothered me at an early age. My youthful understanding was that this is a story of an innocent bistander who is swept from his home to go fight in some war of which he has no interest. (Is that a correct assessment?)
At an early age, it disturbed me. I guess I realized we, sans the upper class, are all just Hobbits, aren’t we? Whether fighting in someone else’s war or swept up in affairs in the Office over which we have no control.
We’re just pawns. Was that Tolkien’s point? I won’t read the books…the cartoon was grim enough for me.
- Jinx
[QUOTE=Phase42]
So what you’re saying is that the movie reinforces the unfortunate notion many women have that, no matter how rotten a man is, and how bad all her friends and family think he is for her, her love can change him.
[/QUOTE]
HA! I didn’t even catch that. Yes, exactly, it’s an entirely differen’t crappy message.
Although I do think you can sometimes help people change, at least by helping them see the beauty in themselves … assuming some exists, that is.
I had a problem with the message from the Invisibles too. The “evil” character was the one who truly excelled - used his brains to become a superhero instead of just becoming one accidentally through genetics. The good people were destined at birth to be superior to us mere mortals, but the one who achieves it on his own is an upstart to be shunned by Homo Superior. It reminds me of the Three Musketeers book that I loved as a kid (and still love) - noblemen are born with more grace, martial ability and lofty sentiments than the plebes - the common man who attempts to reach those heights is ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Arnold Winkelried]
I had a problem with the message from the Invisibles too. The “evil” character was the one who truly excelled - used his brains to become a superhero instead of just becoming one accidentally through genetics. The good people were destined at birth to be superior to us mere mortals, but the one who achieves it on his own is an upstart to be shunned by Homo Superior. It reminds me of the Three Musketeers book that I loved as a kid (and still love) - noblemen are born with more grace, martial ability and lofty sentiments than the plebes - the common man who attempts to reach those heights is ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]
I’d argue that being brainy wasn’t Syndrome’s problem–obsessing over showing off to / showing up Mr. Incredible was. He got the brush-off as a kid, and instead of getting over it and turning his talents elsewhere (like Edna Mode, who’s got technology that’s at least equal to Syndrome’s and buckets full of money), he let the rejection and jealousy consume him. In fact, being obsessive is what leads Mr. Incredible down the wrong path in the beginning–his need to be a superhero star again, at the expense of his family life.
But I agree with you about The Three Musketeers. I always wanted to personally bitchslap D’Artagnan for screwing Kitty over (even though he really was in twuuuu wuuuuuv with Constance).
[QUOTE=Jinx]
Is it just me? Everyone loves Tolkien, but inside, “The Hobbit” (cartoon movie) always bothered me at an early age. My youthful understanding was that this is a story of an innocent bistander who is swept from his home to go fight in some war of which he has no interest. (Is that a correct assessment?)
At an early age, it disturbed me. I guess I realized we, sans the upper class, are all just Hobbits, aren’t we? Whether fighting in someone else’s war or swept up in affairs in the Office over which we have no control.
We’re just pawns. Was that Tolkien’s point? I won’t read the books…the cartoon was grim enough for me.
- Jinx
[/QUOTE]
I think you nailed it, and that’s a huge accomplishment for a young Tolkien reader. Generally people don’t realize what a manipulative asshole Gandalf is until they get older and read the extended works.
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
You should understand that it doesn’t matter how you see him coming across, lissener. Unless Spielberg comes out and acknowledges that he is a self-hating Jew, you’re just a big silly for talking about anything other than the artist’s explicit statements on how we should interpret his work.
[/QUOTE]
The whole point of art is that each viewer gets to interpret the work for himself.
[QUOTE=acsenray]
The whole point of art is that each viewer gets to interpret the work for himself.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t say that is the whole point. One of art’s many features, but not the whole point.
So why am I roundly mocked for bringing up what I interpret as clear influences from (or highly coincidental parallels with) Randian philosophy in the Incredibles? It’s not like I am a proponent of that philosophy, but apparently it’s such a live wire with some here that it’s impossible to point it out without getting jeered at as if I were.
[QUOTE=Koxinga]
So why am I roundly mocked for bringing up what I interpret as clear influences from (or highly coincidental parallels with) Randian philosophy in the Incredibles? It’s not like I am a proponent of that philosophy, but apparently it’s such a live wire with some here that it’s impossible to point it out without getting jeered at as if I were.
[/QUOTE]
Hah. Welcome to my world, Koxinga.
There are a lot of fans of The Incredibles here who have a strong negative reaction to any suggestion that the movie features Randian themes. Draw your own conclusions about why they react that way.
I went into the movie cold, and the objectivist stuff jumped out at me.
As to Bird’s denials, he has also said that he went through a Rand-fanboy phase in his youth. Whether intentionally or not, I think his familiarity with objectivism informs his work on The Incredibles.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
I wouldn’t say that is the whole point. One of art’s many features, but not the whole point.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, let me modify that then. It’s the whole point of letting someone else see what you’ve created. An artist who thinks he can dictate to the world what everyone must think about his or her art is delusional.
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
Also Beauty and the Beast promotes anorexia. During the “Be Our Guest” musical sequence, Belle doesn’t eat a SINGLE thing at the feast. Even though the whole sequence is completely devoted to describing all of the sumptuous culinary delights available to her, she is not once shown eating anything.
[/QUOTE]
The overall message of Beauty and the Beast has always bugged me. She fell in love with the “monstrous dude” and the reward is that he turns into a hottie? Way to totally defeate the entire movie! If she’s in love with the guy, she sould love him exactly as-is. That’s the whole point. She should be able to live happily ever after with the hairy fanged guy because she wants to.
On the other hand, that idea has also probably encouraged a ton of stalkers throughout the year, filling their heads with the idea: “If she just gets to know the real me she’ll love me. Warts and all.”
ETA: Holy crap! This is a two-page thread? :smack:
[QUOTE=acsenray]
Okay, let me modify that then. It’s the whole point of letting someone else see what you’ve created. An artist who thinks he can dictate to the world what everyone must think about his or her art is delusional.
[/QUOTE]
So Dumbledore is not necessarily gay?