Obviously*, ArchiveGuy, you and I need to watch some movies together sometime.
- to me, anyway
So you mean specifically what I said about The Wall, ok.
I can’t think of any other work of comparable significance that is as centrally and as totally about being male, masculinity, and alienation specific TO THAT, than The Wall. No, i most certainly do not think “everything” is about that theme.
I do not, for example, think 31 Dresses or The Sopranos or The Day the Earth Stood Still or Citizen Kane or 101 Dalmatians or The Princess Bride or The Karate Kid are by any stretch of the imagination about being male, masculinity, and the emotional content of the male sex role and/or being alienated from it.
Tea and Sympathy perhaps but it’s not in the same class and doesn’t make anywhere near as many points.
Well, not that specific theme. But anything can be reduced to a theme. “Twilight” could be about deep seated misogyny. Pet Sematary’s not about psycho animals/kids coming back from the dead but about how people deal with deaths.
Pet Sematary could indeed not be about psycho animals / kids coming back from the dead but about how people deal with deaths. And to an extent it is exactly that. And a little bit about “be careful about what you wish for, you just might get it”. But it’s also about formerly lovable animals/kids coming back from the dead and not being so lovable. It’s a horror story from a horror story writer and to a major extent yes it really is a horror story.
The Wall, on the other hand, is an incredibly powerful indictment of “masculinity” and the pains of trying to conform to it as well as the pains of being beyond/outside its definitions. It’s almost polemical about it, it won’t leave the subect matter alone for a single song. Even the little between-the-songs auditory vignettes are about that.
It’s at least as much about that as The Women’s Room by Marilyn French was about the female equivalent.
It’s called a metaphor. The important point isn’t whether he ends up in California or Florida or New Zealand - the issue is taking whether he takes that first step and leaves New Jersey (or wherever home is).
As I wrote before anyone who wants to be overly literal can claim that Holden McNeil is not an autobiographical character. After all, McNeil is a comic book artist and Kevin Smith is a filmmaker. So they’re obviously completely different. Except that Smith has explicitly said that Holden McNeil is intended as an autobiographical character.
I think you’ve got that wrong.
(Can we lose the spoilers? Spoilers ahead.)
It’s not that “Harry’s big, career-making job involved an important negotiation in which he told one side what the other side’s final position would be. Thus making the entire negotiation a farce in which Harry’s side was able to essentially get everything they wanted because they knew going in what the real final objective of their opponent was.” The president of a teamster local had set up a phony welfare fund, which (a) only he and his accountant knew about, and which (b) they only ever discussed on a bug-proof fishing boat, while out on the water with nobody else even on the horizon. Harry was working for a prosecutor, and recorded everything; the president assumed his accountant talked, and said accountant got killed along with his wife and kid.
I agree with this 100%. I never listened to music much growing up, so when I first saw the movie “The Wall” as a teenager, I had only heard a couple of the songs before. After watching the movie, I thought it was obvious that the central theme of the entire thing was maleness and gender roles. I was extremely surprised to learn that not everyone comes to the same conclusion.
The Florida part wasn’t the important part of what I was saying. My point is that Kevin left long after he became successful doing something he loved doing for a long time, for his own reasons. Dante was languishing, was going to leave for someone else, and their idea of what Dante would need to do to be successful. I’m sure Kevin still had somewhat of a quandary over leaving his ‘homies’ and that quandary played a role in inspiring the script for Clerks II, but I definitely don’t buy that he really thinks he’d be happier if he stayed like Dante.
That is what Pet Sematary is about, though. Yeah, the plot revolves around zombie pets and kids, just like the plot of Twilight is a romance between a clumsy girl and a vampire, but what happens on the level of plot and what a work is about are often two different things.
Wait… I thought that’s what Carrie was about the whole time.
Firefly and Serenity: The Alliance is not the be-all-end-all of controlling vindictive Big Brother evil. It is a largely benevolent agency run by people collectively trying to do what they feel is best for the people. In many cases, they actually do succeed to a degree. Many of the problems that the Alliance does have is more in regards to their reach exceeding their grasp, rather than them being pure dagnasty evil. So we end up with private contractors running security on planets, or mercenaries being hired out by locals to take care of local bad guys.
There are some fairly horrific things that elements of the Alliance has been responsible for, but we’ve never been given any indication that these were typically intentional (aside from The Academy, which most likely the large part of the Alliance Parliament was entirely unaware of)
The only reason we see the Alliance as this omnipresent controlling evil is because that’s how Mal sees it. But then, as Mal will try to claim from time to time, he and his crew are outlaws (in one episode, it’s even pointed out that his shortened name is Latin for “Bad”). It seems that if Mal would stop being so stubborn (and stop rescuing lost puppies on the run from the law) then he could actually do rather well under the current government, except that he’s understandably bitter and scarred from the long war he fought against them.
Firefly and Serenity are pretty much The Outlaw Jose Wales in outer space. We see what a civil war looks like from the losing side, and given that at bottom all governments have to be mainly about power, it isn’t pretty.
Thanks, TOWP. I knew I was on thin ice going from memory, even with one of my favorite movies. I still think there’s an implication that Harry feels the long arm of the mob reaching out for him, though.
Sounds good. If you’re ever in Northern California (or I’m in North Carolina), we can make it happen. 
Can you elaborate? I’m trying to remember the vital clue he missed.
Are you referring to
the demonstration of the device that turns a phone into an open mic remotely?
Keep readin’, Senor.
Oh! 'Nother one from me. And it’s about Batman again, though much less serious. It’s more of a pet theory/tortured rationalization, built for my own amusment.
Anyway—the drastic change in tone of the last two of the original four Batman movies can, in fact, be reconciled with the darker, more serious tone of the first two.
How? Gotham City got that way because Batman fixed it. Because of his presence, all or most of the sane criminals have either skipped town or gone straight; most of the ones who’re left are the kind of wackos who think it’s a great idea to hang around putting on face paint under blacklights, and increasingly isolated and unorganized low level criminals. Crime is kept so in check—and mostly to the domain of harmless bumblers and weirdos—that the city has experienced a massive economic and cultural boom, and the streets are safe enough that the Dark Knight can openly attend charity auctions in front of the press.
The movies didn’t get stupid—they’re a realistic depiction of an urban society becoming ridiculously decadent after the removal of a hitherto intractable societal bane.
I…can’t really explain the silly sound effects, or why someone thought it would be a good idea to build freeways through the middle of the city perched on the shoulders of 80-storey tall statues. Maybe the latter was a make-work project, or something…someone ask Joel.
Yes, obviously. Why else do you have the opinion? And even feel it has enough merit that you should inform us about it.
I apparently stand alone in my belief that Oedipus, in addition to not having an Oedipal complex, was entirely justified in killing his father, and that the audiences of the time would not have considered it a big deal if the man he killed was not kin. Modern readers tend to take easy access to law enforcement for granted, and don’t realize that in those times roads between cities went through wilderness areas far from any aid or refuge. In short, if someone started any trouble with you on a road, if they even looked at your wrong, you were justified in killing them in self-defense. And you did kill them to make sure they wouldn’t have a chance to sic their buddies on you if you decided to be merciful. I’ve seen too many people try to reduce Oedipus Rex to a morality tail about the fruits of violence, and it simply isn’t so.
I totally agree. As examples, Pinky is screwing around while on tour but when he calls home and his wife’s boyfriend answers, he can’t believe his wife is doing another guy. Another example, the things he asks his mom about are normal for a little boy, but he’s already apprehensive about it *before *his mom starts building up the wall.
Wait… I thought that’s what Firefly was about the whole time.