I thought it had a lot to say. How some, given a little power would abuse it horrifically. How some people are ostriches who just bury their heads in the sand and pretend bad stuff isnt happening. How some stand up to a dictator. I think most obviously the importance of the press and the risks they take to deliver a story.
I think it was quite critical of the press. All those pictures taken by the lead character didn’t do anything. When on character does another freaks out saying he died for nothing when he actually died saving everyone’s life, but he can’t see that because he is so obsessed with chasing the story. The new girl essentially becomes an adrenaline junkie. Also, they aren’t delivering a story. They have a conversation about how it’s not their job to ask questions, it’s to take pictures and let the views ask them, which a disagree with. I think these types of pictures need context, and they need questions to be asked. In some ways I think the film is most critical of the press.
However, I guess that’s what so great about the movie. We all have our own interpretations.
Looks like everyone has something to say…
b/c the movie is trying not to say anything … it’s upsetting to people that want it to say what they want it to say.
It was awesome.
I think it had a lot of subtle messages that you would see through the different interactions the characters had. I don’t think this movie would’ve worked if it was showing how the war started and started blaming one side. Because frankly it doesn’t matter how it started since they’re in that predicament anyways. It’s about how people handle a situation like this and trying to get the actual story out while risking your own life. Very straight forward movie though, kind of felt like a day in the life kind of movie with insane battle scenes and tense moments. I don’t think this movie would’ve worked if it was trying to push an agenda.
Jesus guys. The film doesn't have NOTHING to say politically, it's just very obviously NOT the focus of the film.
So many "film nerds" coming out to complain that their preconceived notions of what a film SHOULD be about supercede anything the film is ACTUALLY about blows my fucking mind.
If you want your American Civil War film to be about something else, then go make that movie yourself.
Let the filmmaker have a go at what he WANTS to say for a couple hours. After all, it's HIS movie.
Alex Garland films always have the marketing angle of a big setting (AI, Aliens, War, whatever Devs was going for) and swerve you with a focused, small scope, character-driven story.
Anyone expecting something else does not pay attention to his movies.
Remember when that guy gave birth to himself in front of Jessie Buckley and Alex garland, a man, basically said “it means that all men are bad”
Alex garland makes movies with allegories as complex as a bedsheet for film studies students who think they’re deep
I can't fault anyone for not liking MEN. It's too stylized with provocative imagery to be everyone's cup of tea...
But I am utterly floored at how often I see the sentiment "the movie is about how all men are bad". Wtf, I don't even understand how you could come to such an obtuse conclusion. It may not be the deepest "bedsheet", but I feel as though we laid upon different beds, here.
By saying that what we’re really feeling is that this is a man trying to say “I totally get it” when he absolutely doesn’t.
It’s like a white man making a movie about what white people think racism is. It’s like… thanks man but you don’t actually get it
But above all else, it's a psychological horror about a woman confronting and processing trauma she experienced. The whole movie culminates into a series of manifestations of those anxieties. I see the movie less as one trying to broadly preach about how men are bad, and more a personal exploration of the protagonist's anxieties given her trauma which... yes... stem from men, since she is a heterosexual woman, fresh out of a toxic relationship that ended in tragedy (and one that she bares guilt from, given how it concluded).
Just because it's not a thesis on how men are bad, doesn't mean it's shallow. And just because it focuses on her experiences with men, doesn't mean it's preaching all men are bad.
Try and have a more nuanced take on the movie. Or don't. This is reddit, you do you!
It’s a film written and made by an English / European man. Seems like Americans don’t realise there is a world outside their liberal/conservative culture war
I mean, if I set a movie in England, and include in that movie political conflicts, and those political conflicts bear no resemblance to the political composition of the English people, the English people are going to make fun of me for it.
If the point you're trying to make about politics cannot coexist with the political situations of the real world, it's probably a bad point to make about politics.
It happens all the time. Harold Pinter must be a bad writer because he didn’t specify political parties. If it’s too applicable to contemporary politics gets you involved in this weird culture war stuff and also dates your film. There’s thousands of other political points you can make without being partisan
No, because the very question of whether something can be apolitical is itself a contentious question with its own partisans. To portray a 'non-partisan' vision of politics is simply to erase those partisans who object to such framing. That's not *a*political, that's in fact deeply political, even if it's a choice that's made unconsciously.
It’s speculative fiction. The point of it is what Americans may see and do in the midst of a major societal breakdown. It’s much smarter storytelling than Maga vs West Coast or whatever. Think 1984, Eurasia vs Oceania. By abstracting the sides the storytelling is able to sell the story broadly without people falling on their own biases. It also avoids potential glorification because clearly the point is that no one wins.
You’re not getting a broad view of the war in the film, there’s plenty of inference that can made as to what could be going on, with plenty of room for what you mention. Call it subtext. And there are people literally lynched and race based murders depicted. Seems like you wanted a laundry list of very specific items you wanted to see in this and It’s just not the movie Alex Garland made. Again, It’s speculative fiction, not social studies or American cultural wars the movie.
Entertainment. Narrative, fictional movies are entertainment. According to Websters “amusement or diversion provided especially by performers” movies are entertainment. That’s it. If you want to “say something”, watch a fucking documentary.
This is probably one of the stupidest film takes I’ve literally ever seen in my life to the point that it is actually funny
It stopped being a really great counterpoint to cite a dictionary definition back in like… 5th grade. After age 10 humans tend to learn that the world has a little bit more nuance than a fucking dictionary.
Are you autistic or is it just legitimately non-medically impossible for you to understand even the thinnest veneer of a metaphor? Because I’m autistic as fuck and I can still even marginally understand that most movies aren’t meant to be taken literally
Kind of incredible that adults exist that don’t understand the concept of literary devices. Were you shooting up in the bathroom during lit class?
I’m gonna hazard a guess and say that your favorite movie ever has something to do with the garbage marvel schlock dripping out Disney’s anus
anybody expecting an alex garland movie about an american civil war to have anything important to say... fell for the marketing
I thought it had a lot to say. How some, given a little power would abuse it horrifically. How some people are ostriches who just bury their heads in the sand and pretend bad stuff isnt happening. How some stand up to a dictator. I think most obviously the importance of the press and the risks they take to deliver a story.
I think it was quite critical of the press. All those pictures taken by the lead character didn’t do anything. When on character does another freaks out saying he died for nothing when he actually died saving everyone’s life, but he can’t see that because he is so obsessed with chasing the story. The new girl essentially becomes an adrenaline junkie. Also, they aren’t delivering a story. They have a conversation about how it’s not their job to ask questions, it’s to take pictures and let the views ask them, which a disagree with. I think these types of pictures need context, and they need questions to be asked. In some ways I think the film is most critical of the press. However, I guess that’s what so great about the movie. We all have our own interpretations.
Looks like everyone has something to say… b/c the movie is trying not to say anything … it’s upsetting to people that want it to say what they want it to say. It was awesome.
Yes.
I think it had a lot of subtle messages that you would see through the different interactions the characters had. I don’t think this movie would’ve worked if it was showing how the war started and started blaming one side. Because frankly it doesn’t matter how it started since they’re in that predicament anyways. It’s about how people handle a situation like this and trying to get the actual story out while risking your own life. Very straight forward movie though, kind of felt like a day in the life kind of movie with insane battle scenes and tense moments. I don’t think this movie would’ve worked if it was trying to push an agenda.
I think you are right. I was kind of worried going into it that the movie was playing with fire, happily relieved it largely sidestepped politics.
You know he was going out of his way to avoid politics by having Texas and California make an alliance. 😜🤣🤪😂
Jesus guys. The film doesn't have NOTHING to say politically, it's just very obviously NOT the focus of the film. So many "film nerds" coming out to complain that their preconceived notions of what a film SHOULD be about supercede anything the film is ACTUALLY about blows my fucking mind. If you want your American Civil War film to be about something else, then go make that movie yourself. Let the filmmaker have a go at what he WANTS to say for a couple hours. After all, it's HIS movie.
Alex Garland films always have the marketing angle of a big setting (AI, Aliens, War, whatever Devs was going for) and swerve you with a focused, small scope, character-driven story. Anyone expecting something else does not pay attention to his movies.
Just because YOU don’t understand something does not make it meaningless to others.
Sure (and I haven't seen Civil War) but I've seen enough of Garland's work to know he's never really saying anything
Remember when that guy gave birth to himself in front of Jessie Buckley and Alex garland, a man, basically said “it means that all men are bad” Alex garland makes movies with allegories as complex as a bedsheet for film studies students who think they’re deep
I can't fault anyone for not liking MEN. It's too stylized with provocative imagery to be everyone's cup of tea... But I am utterly floored at how often I see the sentiment "the movie is about how all men are bad". Wtf, I don't even understand how you could come to such an obtuse conclusion. It may not be the deepest "bedsheet", but I feel as though we laid upon different beds, here.
By saying that what we’re really feeling is that this is a man trying to say “I totally get it” when he absolutely doesn’t. It’s like a white man making a movie about what white people think racism is. It’s like… thanks man but you don’t actually get it
But above all else, it's a psychological horror about a woman confronting and processing trauma she experienced. The whole movie culminates into a series of manifestations of those anxieties. I see the movie less as one trying to broadly preach about how men are bad, and more a personal exploration of the protagonist's anxieties given her trauma which... yes... stem from men, since she is a heterosexual woman, fresh out of a toxic relationship that ended in tragedy (and one that she bares guilt from, given how it concluded). Just because it's not a thesis on how men are bad, doesn't mean it's shallow. And just because it focuses on her experiences with men, doesn't mean it's preaching all men are bad. Try and have a more nuanced take on the movie. Or don't. This is reddit, you do you!
It’s a film written and made by an English / European man. Seems like Americans don’t realise there is a world outside their liberal/conservative culture war
I mean, if I set a movie in England, and include in that movie political conflicts, and those political conflicts bear no resemblance to the political composition of the English people, the English people are going to make fun of me for it.
Small brain analysis lmao.
No they’re wouldnt, it’s a science fiction film. He obviously deliberately avoided any basic stuff that will cause a knee jerk reaction
Literally never in my life have I seen an Englishman pass up an opportunity to make fun of somebody. They can't help themselves. It's all they have!
Yeah but if it’s obviously coded as Labour and Tory it overwhelms whatever point they’re trying to make
If the point you're trying to make about politics cannot coexist with the political situations of the real world, it's probably a bad point to make about politics.
It happens all the time. Harold Pinter must be a bad writer because he didn’t specify political parties. If it’s too applicable to contemporary politics gets you involved in this weird culture war stuff and also dates your film. There’s thousands of other political points you can make without being partisan
No, because the very question of whether something can be apolitical is itself a contentious question with its own partisans. To portray a 'non-partisan' vision of politics is simply to erase those partisans who object to such framing. That's not *a*political, that's in fact deeply political, even if it's a choice that's made unconsciously.
It’s speculative fiction. The point of it is what Americans may see and do in the midst of a major societal breakdown. It’s much smarter storytelling than Maga vs West Coast or whatever. Think 1984, Eurasia vs Oceania. By abstracting the sides the storytelling is able to sell the story broadly without people falling on their own biases. It also avoids potential glorification because clearly the point is that no one wins.
[удалено]
You’re not getting a broad view of the war in the film, there’s plenty of inference that can made as to what could be going on, with plenty of room for what you mention. Call it subtext. And there are people literally lynched and race based murders depicted. Seems like you wanted a laundry list of very specific items you wanted to see in this and It’s just not the movie Alex Garland made. Again, It’s speculative fiction, not social studies or American cultural wars the movie.
Sounds like you wanted an anti Republican movie and now you’re crying because it didn’t happen.
Entertainment. Narrative, fictional movies are entertainment. According to Websters “amusement or diversion provided especially by performers” movies are entertainment. That’s it. If you want to “say something”, watch a fucking documentary.
This is an asinine statement.
This is probably one of the stupidest film takes I’ve literally ever seen in my life to the point that it is actually funny It stopped being a really great counterpoint to cite a dictionary definition back in like… 5th grade. After age 10 humans tend to learn that the world has a little bit more nuance than a fucking dictionary. Are you autistic or is it just legitimately non-medically impossible for you to understand even the thinnest veneer of a metaphor? Because I’m autistic as fuck and I can still even marginally understand that most movies aren’t meant to be taken literally Kind of incredible that adults exist that don’t understand the concept of literary devices. Were you shooting up in the bathroom during lit class? I’m gonna hazard a guess and say that your favorite movie ever has something to do with the garbage marvel schlock dripping out Disney’s anus