A certain self-aggrandizing and irritantingly pretentious poster has repeatedly made this claim. He then goes on to boast about his superior movie-watching skills and bores all who disagree to death with pseudo-intellectual rethoric.

Obviously said poster is a big fraud and a hypocrite. How else can you explain that :

- He rages against capitalism, yet makes posts about how he wears expensive brand watches and drinks imported beers.

- He pretends to be a fervent atheist, yet uses the word "God" in every other post.

- He preaches tolerance, yet scoffs at Marvel fans and drove Couch Potato from these very boards.

-...

But as usual he will deny all those things.

So driving back from holiday, I thought, why not ask him to put his money where his mouth is instead ?

And have him point out the political messages in a few films I selected from my DVD-collection :

SCI-FI :
Event Horizon (1997)
Los Cronocrimenes (2007) aka Timecrimes

HORROR :
Wrong Turn (2003)
Braindead (1992)

COMEDY :
There's Something about Mary (1998)
Dumb and Dumber(1994)

THRILLER :
Hitcher (1986)
The Dead Lands (2014)

MISCELANNEOUS
Stark Raving Mad (2002)
The Hit (1984)

I could have made it harder by adding Ace Ventura, Snatch, Perfume, Airplane, The Hit, Dodgeball, This is Spinal Tap, Castaway, De Zaak Alzheimer (aka The Memory of a Killer),... to the list, but I think these ten will do for now.

This should be good for a laugh.

You seem a bit obsessed with him.

>>2
"Highly irritated" is probable a better description.

I loathe posers and I have a problem with (self-appointed) authority.

>>3

I loathe posers and I have a problem with (self-appointed) authority.

lulz that's about half the posters here, you faget.

Please. I don't think you know what the term "expensive" means. Are you from Rwanda?

I don’t agree with that statement. some people might read too much into a film, but not every film has a political agenda behind it.

I agree with you. anon, however, knows best.

Or so he says.

Constantly.

If he is a totally uncreative person with no real interest in art he may project himself into others, thinking nobody wants to do anything but propaganda. An equally idiotic claim would be to say no movie has no message whatsoever.

Well geez, the political message in Dumb and Dumber is....um....well...

Could I get back to you on that one?

Not to mention the strong political message in Space Jam, Weekend at Bernies 2 and Scary Movie.

Those are not part of my collection, but anon will probably point out that Space Jam is racist somehow, whereas Scary Movie makes a strong feminist statement...

Well, Weekend at Bernie's has a strong political message. It, um...well, it should be obvious.... Same with Turner and Hooch, The Money Pit, Caddyshack, and Hot Resort.

The scene in Caddyshack which is set in the pool...that's most political of all.

>>12
Clearly Caddyshack tells us about the Vietnam conflict, Ma'am.

I believe the rodents represent the Vietcong, indigenous to the area and thus its rightful occupants, whereas the golf club and Rodney Dangerfield are the filthy capitalist imperialists. And Chevy Chase is the US military, which ultimately fails to surpress the VC.

How can anyone not see that ?

>>13
Geez....thanks for explaining that to me! I never would have guessed....

Ace Ventura

It's probably subliminally anti-vaccination or something. Ebert always down-votes these movies because of politics:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/me-myself-and-irene-2000

His sons stay with him, growing into enormous lads who are brilliant at school but use the MF-word as if it were punctuation. Since no one else in their lives uses it, the movie must think all African Americans are required by statute or genetics to repeat the word ceaselessly

Well, he actually had a point there.

Whether I would call that minor detail a "political statement" is another issue though.

>>16
Hmmm...your post smacks of anarchy. Are you a facists, anon?

>>17
Far from it, anon.

And I'm not sure how you connect an anarchist post to a facist agenda.

Cause I'm as close to politically retarded as one can get. I always thought the Two Party System meant the winner gets to partay twice as hard.

I guess there's a tranquility in that.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but I find these types of call-out threads to be in poor taste and a waste of time.

If you were truly bored by/tired of anon's antics (like your little snoozing emoticon suggests), you wouldn't bother creating this thread.

As I wrote, I want to see if he'll put his money where his mouth is.

If not, there's no denying he's full of shyt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGIRlQiXg_8

To each their own, I guess.

A better question might be: Why do you own Wrong Turn?!

Yikes, what an abysmal film. The only acceptable answer I can fathom is that you enjoy watching Eliza Dushku parade around in that tight, white tank top for 80 minutes.

I really shouldn't dignify this ridiculous, ignorant, insulting thread with any sort of a response, and indeed I refuse to play along, however, I will use this as a platform, once again, to explain what should be an obvious, unquestionable fact about the nature of art and politics.

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for people to wrap their heads around, because, as I said, it should be plainly obvious to just about everyone, especially those of us who have actually dedicated a significant effort to exploring film. But, once again, here goes nothing...

It's not so much that every single film has an explicit "political message" or "agenda," but rather that all art is made in a political context in society. Art, especially art that is widely disseminated to the masses of people, plays a role both in reflecting and shaping culture in society. In other words, all films say something about the time and place they are made and the people who make them. Even films that aren't overt "propaganda" or explicitly push a specific agenda nevertheless carry political weight as cultural artifacts. They can reinforce or challenge various social norms, even if they don't do so intentionally or overtly. Even totally mainstream films made to do nothing but entertain on a surface level and make money as a product do this. There's no way they couldn't.

A film like American Pie, for example, isn't something that most people would consider "political," and yet it does reveal a lot about gender roles and sexual attitudes and expectations in society, the way people derive self-worth and social status based on sex, etc.. Sure, it's entertaining and funny, and there's no reason that one needs to examine the film in this way in order to enjoy it, but if you actually do choose to do so, you can. There is a sociopolitical angle that can be derived from every single film, and all films can be analyzed from political perspectives.

All films say something about who we are as a species, what our societies are like, cultural traditions and social norms, and even overt politics too. The Wages of Fear is an entertaining film about guys trying not to blow themselves up while they transport explosives to put out a oil rig fire. But it's also about the division between social classes, the desire to escape the invisible prison of poverty, the exploitation of one class by another, and the corruption of the soul by wealth. It's not so much that it's "about" politics, or even necessarily that there's an "agenda," it's simply that this political subtext is an inherent aspect of the narrative, and it's there if you choose to look for it.

Films are political. All of them. They each, in one way or another, reflect and shape society, and they each, in some way, reflect the worldviews of the artists who create them. This is not debatable. It's a fact, and if you disagree, you are wrong, period. The bottom line is, films are about things. They say something. And if they didn't there would be no reason to care about them. There would be nothing about them that connects to our hearts and makes us love them. There would be nothing that makes them important to our lives as individuals and important to society at large.

So, having said all that, I want to give a nice "f-ck you," to anon. You sir, are a world class tool.

... and bores all who disagree to death with pseudo-intellectual rethoric.

I thought as much. Good night, anon.

Movies are a product of their time, etc., but still...in many cases, some people just want to kick back and enjoy the movie without any sort of deep analysis.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. Were you serous about American Pie?

A movie about teenagers trying to loser their virginity before the end of high school? That's not political. It's just a group of dudes trying to get laid, but illustrated in a way depicting humors and relatable scenarios that evolves from that singular idea. That's it.

Oh, and it kinda turns into this cheesy morale story about growing up and treating women differently than barren holes awaiting a penis. But, again, that's not political. That's called growing up / maturing / having a life experience. In order to think that's political, or that every movie directly or indirectly has some political message or theme to it, you would literally have to believe that everything in this universe revolves around politics. Everything.

Whenever politics enters a discussion, common sense and rationale is soon to leave that discussion. If you try to make an argument that American Pie has some political... whatever, that's because you, and only because you, are imparting your political ideas onto the movie. You - the viewer - sees something that isn't there. And throwing around blanket statements like "gender roles" doesn't help your augment. It just makes you look desperate and dumb.

If you try to make an argument that American Pie has some political... whatever, that's because you, and only because you, are imparting your political ideas onto the movie. You - the viewer - sees something that isn't there.

"The eye of the beholder".

I, for one, think your explanation is reasonable and unquestionably true. I wouldn't want to take it as far as you do at times, and I think sometimes your conclusions are a bit "out there", but your premise that all art reflects the world and, specifically, the creator's view of the world, is undeniable.

This kind of tunnel vision is all too common, it doesn't take into account the artists who are not out there to make politics or reflect their own world view. This makes your position bad enough, but when you are also unable to rightly divide what is being said and by whom (the commie in question thinks the protagonist in any film shares the values of the film maker etc.) people like you can be said to be worst enemies of art and entertainment (by you I mean not one particular poster but anyone ascribing to these simplistic politics).

I think you're misrepresenting his argument. I don't think he said anything like "the protagonist in any film shares the values of the film maker." A claim like that would indeed be ridiculous, and demonstrably untrue. However, the choices a writer makes when making a screenplay, what they decide to put in or what they decide to leave out, will reflect their own personal views of the world. That's all I'm agreeing with and I don't see how anyone can deny it.

It also reflects on their view on storytelling. For instance, a feminist writing a Bond film - if they were indeed writing a Bond film for entertainment - would not include a speech about women's rights because it would have nothing to do with a spy mission. anon would only see it as a missed opportunity and accuse the writer of being a misogynist.

Brilliant. Thank you. I've been trying to explain the same thing to someone on the Ex Machina board as they put forward a case for it being feminist propaganda. People are paranoid, insecure, uneducated and immature. They seek explanations for the negative aspects in their life where it's easy to place blame - the television screen. At some point they developed a serious mistrust of other people which becomes the filter through which they view the invisible creators of films. These are not happy people. They are nervous, angry and vengeful people out for blood. How could anyone expect them to sit down and enjoy a movie, let alone see it objectively?

I haven't seen Ex Machina yet, but it's entirely possible that it actually does have a feminist subtext, in the same way that Mad Max: Fury Road does.

let alone see it objectively?

There is no such thing. We all filter art through our inherently subjective perspectives.

Oh, it definitely does have that subtext, like every movie does but whether it's intentional or not is complete speculation. Going as far as calling it propaganda is just insane. This person actually believes the filmmakers set out to send a message of feminism before they even sat down to write the thing.

Going as far as calling it propaganda is just insane.

Well, yeah, the people who are inclined to complain about "feminist propaganda" are pretty much idiots.

Why are you feeding the communistroll?

The problem is simply one of language, since anon in his post says "all films can be analyzed from political perspectives." This is undeniably true, but it's also banal. If you're familiar with the debate, this is John Searle's criticism of famous philosotroll Jacques Derrida. JD would say something that sounded controversial, such as his famous line that "there is no outside-text," and when confronted about the stupidity of believing nothing exists outside of text would reframe his statement to mean that nothing exists outside of a given context. Of course, this latter statement is true, but it is also banal to the point of being utterly meaningless. This is the same trolling technique anon uses. Say something that sounds controversial to provoke a reaction (i.e., "all films are political"), and when confronted rephrase it into something that is true but so banal that it's not worth saying (i.e., "all films can be analyzed from political perspectives"). He may not even realize he's doing this, because when the objective is identity and attention any truly intellectual content is secondary.*

*(In all fairness, this is partly a reflection of both latent tendencies in society and the nebulous nature of ideal types. For instance, "political" broadly construed simply means relating to power relations. Just take a look at the variance in the field called "political science" in the US. Some political scientists study the use of poetry in ancient Greek philosophy, while others study behavioral genetics and do lab experiments. "Political" is simply an analytical category, and can thus be sufficiently broadened to include just about anything).

An interesting read, Fake.

"when confronted rephrase it into something that is true but so banal that it's not worth saying."

That is probably from some evil dictator rulebook: They use direct, confrontational rhetoric to rally their supporters and change it to banal generalities when met with criticism from foreign leaders.

It reveals a lot about you that you'd rather cheer on this ridiculous call-out thread than be brave enough to be seen opposing it. You're a pathetic cowards.

Let he who has never posted a call-out thread cast the first stone.

>>41
Can you lend me some spare stones?

"Lend"? I'm an Evil Capitalist dontcha know, so I'll sell you some. The nice smooth ones (excellent for parody) from the riverbed are $1 apiece; the sharp rocky ones that both our OP and our Man of Mao use will only run you .75.

Well, it certainly costs to be nice! (I'll take the sharp ones, since I was just going to leave them between the two to see what happens anyway).

There were circumstances behind that, which were that you had just told me you put me on ignore, and I wanted to make one last point in the argument we were having, and making an open thread to you was the only way I thought I could get the message to you. I wasn't trying to be an insulting a-hole like Demarates is here. When I did it my goal was to articulate the differences between your perspective and mine, ultimately in the hope of finding some common ground.

Throwing around insults like a-hole and tool, instead of even attempting to prove your point, really makes your case more convincing.

instead of even attempting to prove your point

I gave you a reply, which is a lot more than what you deserved, and you casually dismissed it without a second thought.

A hollow reply, as Fake has pointed out much more eloquently than I ever could.

much more eloquently than I ever could.

Ain't that the truth.

Your tolerance and openmindedness once again serve as a shining example to us all.

Only the weak, degenerate bourgeoisie can afford to be open-minded and tolerant. The revolutionary struggle of the wage-slaves at CNN demands single-minded and unflinching devotion and will brook no alternative, capitalistic-democratic points of view!

anon works at CNN ?

Dude promised to hook me up with Anderson Cooper but never followed through.

No surprise there...

What is your problem? I thought we were about to make up last week, but I guess not...

Once again, I try to get along, and once again you throw it back in my face.

I didn't join this thread because it's a call-out thread. I joined it because I think that the idea of every movie having a political message is ridiculous. Besides, I didn't even know who was being called out when I joined. I don't have a problem with you, but I have never had much tolerance for over-analyzing films. I've expressed those views on a number of threads on various boards.

I'm not happy with this thread being called "call-out thread", but I can see how it would be interpreted as one. I started off pretty strong.

But the main point of it was and still is : "IF you believe every movie is a political statement, THEN please prove it by pointing out the political statements made in these 10 films."

Something which anon refuses to do.

Oh, I understand. You didn't actually mention anyone by name in your opening post, so I didn't even know who you were talking about.

I guess it's just a topic that's a bit of a sore spot with me, so I jumped in. I watch movies for fun. I love mysteries from the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s - mysteries set in isolated houses with secret passages and stuff. No politics there, thankfully. I love 1960s comedies, many of them set up to promote the music of the time (ex. Connie Francis singing in her films). There are dramas from various time periods which I enjoy, including post-1980 dramas, but for the most part, I watch movies in order to get away from social significance. I wasn't trying to target that other /tele/ user. I've seen him around and I have no problems with him.

For what it's worth, I've been the subject of quite a few parody threads and call-out threads (not on this board), so I know what it's like. The majority of those threads had nothing to do with my film opinions. They were just childish personal attacks (not surprising). I don't agree with your opinions about movies and politics, but hey, if that's how you feel, then stick to your opinions and don't be swayed by anonymous online folks.

No problem friend, although allow me to hint that I appreciate free beer even more than hugs ; ).

What you're describing is only one aspect of what I said. At least you admit that part of what i said is true, but what about the rest of it? Because, I also said that all films exist as political artifacts in society, and that they play a role in both reflecting and shaping culture in society, and that art can uphold or challenge established social norms, intentionality or unintentionally. I'm not "reframing" my argument, merely articulating different aspects of the mult-layered ways in which art and politics are related. Your whole argument about my position falls apart if you acknowledge the entirety of my position, rather than picking out just one part and falsely using that aspect of my argument to make it look like I'm shifting the terms of the debate. I'm not. All art is political, and all at can be analyzed politically. I stand by both aspects of this statement, and I've explained why.

Just replace the quotes "all films can be analyzed from political perspectives" in my post with your other statement "all films exist as political artifacts in society, and that they play a role in both reflecting and shaping culture in society, and that art can uphold or challenge established social norms, intentionality or unintentionally." Problem solved.

>>62
That is what's called an explanation of a concept. I'm explaining how art is political based on how it functions in society. Art is political because it can uphold or challenge established social norms, and because it reflects ans shapes culture in society. I fail to see how that is shifting the terms of the debate, it's merely providing an explanation. If someone were to ask me, "why do you think all art is political?" that's the answer to that question, or at least one part of my answer.

I know. It's banal, and expansive to the point of irrelevance.

Or simply true. One has to wonder why such effort is spent in the denial of art's political nature. You're basically saying, "even though what you say is true, you're wrong." In what universe does that make sense?

SCI-FI :
Event Horizon (1997)
Los Cronocrimenes (2007) aka Timecrimes

HORROR :
Wrong Turn (2003)
Braindead (1992)

COMEDY :
There's Something about Mary (1998)
Dumb and Dumber(1994)

THRILLER :
Hitcher (1986)
The Dead Lands (2014)

MISCELANNEOUS
Stark Raving Mad (2002)
The Hit (1984)

MONEY -> MOUTH

Art is political, historical, social, philosophical, psychological, economic, anthropological, aesthetic, and ethical. Art is artistic. Now that we are done with these banal and meaningless statements, do we get to talk about something interesting or did I just blow all my cocaine for nothing?

Good, we agree. After all, my whole point was that it actually shouldn't be controversial, but rather an obvious truth that there's really no need to debate. Good to see you agree.

It is the message part of the statement that make it a bit strange, it implies to some intention to communicate something political.

The definition of a message is a short communication sent from one person to another or the central theme or idea of a communication.

Not every movie have a political central theme or idea of what they tried to communique, except if we broaden political wide enough to include almost anything.

Of course, as I said "political" is simply an analytical category (i.e., simply useful for the purpose of analysis) and when you define it broadly "art is political" simply means "all films can be analyzed from political perspectives" (or that more long-winded statement). If my analytical perspective is aesthetic, however, and I say something like "Sam Raimi's 'The Evil Dead' is a masterful atmospheric horror that isn't bogged down by political or social commentary," you'll probably be that annoying person who yells that all films are political and that I already assented to this statement. Are you this much of a bore in real life? If you talked like this over drinks at the bar, I would leave and immediately file a restraining order so I didn't slit my wrists with my martini glass next time. Moreover, you have this obsession with being "right." Anyone can right all the time, and in actuality I can't think of anything easier. I could just walk around all day saying vague and banal statements like "everything exists in a context!" or "life is biological!" and never be wrong. Better yet, I could make Derridaesque statements like "there is no outside-text" to entrap people in trite conversations by getting them to agree to the "definition" of that statement as meaning that everything exists in a context. How rewarding (I almost came just now). It's harder to be creative, intelligent, interesting, novel, wise, insightful, friendly, passionate, or any number of qualities that are both more valuable and require more cultivation than being "right." No need to respond to me any more, because I won't reply to any more of your posts anyway. You're toxic, dude.

Edit: That's what I get for using a crummy example (i.e., "biological" is more descriptive and categorical than analytical, but as a student of social science I didn't pay attention to this fact since there it is primarily used theoretically (for it is uncertain to what extent biology serves as the basis of many social relations)).

But imagine if you lived in a society where the majority refused to accept that life is biological, and then force you into trying to prove it all the time while saying things like, "who cares if life is biological, I just like looking at trees." If you're part of the minority that knows life is biological you'd find yourself constantly frustrated with people's ignorance. Well, that's the position I find myself in. It's not that I'm obsessed with "being right," it's just that it's frustrating when most people refuse to accept a basic truth while simultaneously claiming that I'm the one who's being ridiculous.

Man, you're not listening to him. You're asserting something that is objectively correct, but your assertion is vague and all encompassing. That all movies are part of their individually political and social milieus implicitly ultimately doesn't mean anything. Of course all art is a product of when and where it's made, who made it, etc. but this doesn't mean anything. Saying all art is political is just as meaningless as saying all art is art and is a product of the time it was made.

You refuse to listen to anyone else or even concede that maybe other people don't care if some throwaway comedy or whatever is a product of the given aesthetics or social preoccupations of its society at large. Your analogy of people refusing to accept life as biological is absurd and just proves anon's point. You assume you're on the "right" side and then proceed to argue with anyone who disagrees with you. How can there be any debate if you're never wrong? To say "all life is biological" is just a redundant as saying "all art is political". Also very telling how you characterize the opinions of other people as "ignorance". You're trying to create a debate when nothing is there to debate about. Surely you see what anon is saying? Your political statements are redundantly vague?

I tried to be as didactic as possible but you will no doubt ignore most of what I said and go into some tirade about how I'm wrong.

Watch this video, it relates to what anon is saying:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnIa1I5Y-xg

You assume you're on the "right" side and then proceed to argue with anyone who disagrees with you. How can there be any debate if you're never wrong?

Could also be he had trouble hearing you over all the noise of you backpedalling and chickening out.

Edit: I forgot perhaps the most important part of the analogy to the Anonymous debate. anon said not only that anon would make an outrageous or provocative statement and then revise it to something banal, but then that he and his followers would pretend as if the original statement was still right. In other words, anon might say that "there is no outside text" (i.e., that nothing exists outside of the self-referential world of text) and then rephrase this to say that nothing exists outside context when challenged, and then still pretend the first statement is what he meant and what is true. So someone like anon will claim that "all films are political," frame this as meaning "all films can be analyzed from political perspectives," and then continue to pretend that once everyone assents to this banal statement that it supports his particular overtly political view of society. I believe it is this mendacious sophistry that incites frustration against him, along with similar types such as a bearded Lacanian troll whose name shall not be mentioned (although that one is decisively more brilliant and entertaining).

Anon has finally managed to articulate my problems with anons he's basically the SFBE of /tele/. Pseudo-intellect masquerading as great profundity and depth when he is just shallow and ultimately making meaningless statements.

I'll like to hear what kind of political message The Fault in Our Stars has.

If you read his reply, he didn't say all films have a political message, he said all films are political. Big difference.

And a person thinking that a movie you didn't like is better than movies you do? God forbid.

He did make the claim in the header VERBATIM in the past and more than once, but as usual he's going back on his words...

Another addition to the list:

He calls the MCU films "studio manufactured garbage", yet rated Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and The Hangover Part II 6/10.

If you read his reply, he didn't say all films have a political message, he said all films are political. Big difference.

Still, how is The Fault in Our Stars political, in any shape or form?

And a person thinking that a movie you didn't like is better than movies you do? God forbid.

Nah, that wasn't my point. My point was, he shouldn't call MCU films "studio manufactured garbage" when he rates Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and Th e Hangover Part II (whose sole purpose was ONLY to make money) 6/10.

Still, how is The Fault in Our Stars political, in any shape or form?

Because it's a film, and a film exists to make money for it's makers. Money is by definition political

Nah, that wasn't my point. My point was, he shouldn't call MCU films "studio manufactured garbage" when he rates Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and Th e Hangover Part II (whose sole purpose was ONLY to make money) 6/10.

I hate to break this to you but ALL mainstream films exist to make money. That's why they exist. Sure there may be an artistic statement behind them, but foremost they exist to let the crew eat. You think the caterers on The Godfather gave a damn about Coppola's artistic drive? The first rule of film making in the studio system is make money.

And 'studio manufactured garbage" doesn't mean that the purpose is to make money from where I sit, it means that it's bad. I'm of course just guessing and his intentions.

To see the political messages or social context for current films is difficult as we live in within the context of when the film was made. Perhaps a better means to make this assessment is too look at older films to make this observation?

MR. YUNIOSHI, 'BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S'

Unfortunately, racist and otherwise offensive characters are commonplace in American film. For example, Mr. Yunioshi in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's was an over-the-top racist portrayal of a Japanese man, played by the white actor Mickey Rooney in yellowface. Everything from his buck teeth to his squinty eyes to his accent are extremely awkward to watch nowadays. It's hard to believe that this type of thing was once considered funny!

UNCLE REMUS, 'SONG OF THE SOUTH'

'Song of the South' is an early Disney film that was banned from DVD production due to its offensive and racist material. Uncle Remus is a kindly old African American man who appears to believe that everything in life is hunky-dory, despite the fact that slavery had existed not too long before he told the tale of 'Briar Rabbit and the Tar Baby.

THE CROWS, 'DUMBO'

The crows in 'Dumbo' were clearly used to represent the African American community. In some ways this was a positive connection, but overall they were quite stereotypical. If you doubt the racial undertones were intentional, remember that the lead crow's name was Jim Crow. Case closed.

Audiences in the past enjoyed and laughed during these films. For the most part, the masses did not inspect the underlying messages regarding the stereotypes that were reinforced with these films. However as shown above, even in the most seemingly non-political document possible, a cartoon, has a “hidden” message.

There is nothing wrong with watching films simply for their entertainment value. However, you could say the same about some of our historical books as well. Each document (multimedia, text, voice-based, etc.) is created within a social context. You can choose to investigate this context or not. It seems to me that we have a choice on how we absorb the underlying messages of any document - mindfully or mindlessly. To do the former at all times is exhausting; to do the latter with each viewing is to be manipulated.

By way of an analogy, there are audio documents created with subliminal messages. For example a music-based document can be enjoyed simply for the music. However, our brain processes the subliminal messages whether we are conscious about the messages or not. The choice is ours with regards to the content and messages that we engineer into our minds.

However, our brain processes the subliminal messages whether we are conscious about the messages or not.

Really, last time I checked study about this the audio message must be understandable for it to have any effect (something for example too fast, play backward, in frequency we do not hear) have 0 effect. Same for imagery (if you have an Aztec symbol in a movie that you do not know it will not have an effect on you, same for something too fast to see).

The last time I checked is that this issue is debatable. Do you have any links to support the view you mentioned?

Also, your post is suggesting that the analogy is not appropriate. However, are you disagreeing with the content of my message; or is your post simply neutral?

That how much something is a product of it's time is hard to see for people contemporary to it, I agree completely.

People in 1992 did not find strange and of it's time someone smoking in theater in a movie for example and it would be the same for accepted racism/sexism/etc.. of an era.

My message was simply on the subliminal part, just pointing out that it need to be intelligible to have an effect, maybe you did not mind that in your message.

Yeah, good point about smoking in theaters. I knew that the subliminal issue was debatable. I guess I'll have to do some research to bring my knowledge up to the current issues. Thanks for pointing it out.

lol, try Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Or Pee Wee's Big Adventure.

It's not that they carry all political message, it's that the politics of the time can be seen in them if you are looking for it. anon's site analyses this and it's a legitimate way to look at films if you chose to.

He rages against capitalism, yet makes posts about how he wears expensive brand watches and drinks imported beers.

You can like imported beers and brand name watches and not like capitalism. Just because you're a socialist doesn't mean you can't have expensive taste. There are also rich people in the socialistic system as well.

- He pretends to be a fervent atheist, yet uses the word "God" in every other post.

Atheists say "Oh my God" all the time as a figure of speech.

- He preaches tolerance, yet scoffs at Marvel fans and drove SFBE from these very boards.

Tolerance of peoples race, religions, etc. is different than tolerance of opinions. There is no human being that is tolerant of all opinions, and you are being intolerant by attacking this poster in this thread.

Though I do agree with you that not all films have political points and that is a pretentious thing to say, your other reasons for not liking the person are mostly crap I do think driving away another poster is BS though, but then again that poster chose to leave.

Welcome to "ignore"

EDIT: Now I've seen he did NOT say all films have political messages, but all films are in their time and place political the same way that all products are. That's NOT the same thing jackass.

Now I've seen he did NOT say all films have political messages

"I'm not trying to be a Messiah of anything, I'm just stating a fact. It's not even subjective. It's a fact that all films have a political dimension.... However, all films DO make political statements nonetheless."

(anon)

"Actually, every film is political inasmuch as it's an artistic expression of the film maker making editorial choices to tell a particular story. You can't make editorial choices without factoring in your personal worldview as an artist. The act of deciding what's important and what's not, on some level, is political. The act of deciding which stories to tell and which not to tell is political."

(anon)

Thank you for finally admitting that I'm right. All films are political.

(anon) - btw the other posted did not admit at all

The outright denial that all films are inherently political is what I'm calling stupid. If you want to focus on being entertained, fine, that's your right. But it is actually stupid if you believe that films aren't inherently political.

(anon)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're right, anon never said VERBATIM and REPEATEDLY that ALL FILMS ARE POLITICAL. So he certainly hasn't been going back on those words all through this thread, thus proving my point.

Don't sweat it, as I said you're fighting a language game. "All films are political" changes from meaning "all films DO make political statements" to "all films can be analyzed from political perspectives." The middle statement only works by taking a definition of "political" so expansive as to render it meaningless (while the last statement is simply banal), since in that case everything in existence can be defined as political; if you're taking "politics" to mean power relations, then existence itself can be considered political, because it's impossible to disprove the notion that existence is not characterized by struggle between entities with "power" differentials. (If you take the most expansive definition of "political" as relating to "power," and the most expansive definition of "power" to mean the ability for a to get b to do something b otherwise wouldn't do, then the argument still hinges entirely around a counterfactual. Part of the beauty of a real science, physics, for instance, is that it does not yield to the most asinine of language manipulation). However, to use my above example again, there is nothing "inherently" political in a movie such as 'The Evil Dead,' or any number of other movies, although these movies can be interpreted from a political perspective or exist as political artifacts (were created in a society characterized by some type of overarching system of power relations: however, I'm not sure what kind of dullard or maniac would want to view 'The Evil Dead' in that way). Because the purpose of these categories is analytical, there's nothing wrong with using them for comparison by saying '"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is a political movie, but "The Evil Dead" is not.' As soon as you assent to debate with someone who responds to that by saying "all films are political," you have engaged in a language game by someone who only wants to force others to accept her perception of reality and who has a pathological need for confirmation.

Anon is a self proclaimed revolutionary Marxist so he focuses more on class, race, anti-establishment and the conflict between the oppressed vs. the oppressors.

I don't think anon plays a language game in asserting why all movies are political, and he doesn't always post "all films are political" when someone says this movie isn't about politics even when surrounding something political. The main discussion in mind is when Aiwaz posted "all films are political" and got into an argument with the OP who said Apocalypse Now isn't focused on politics and isn't relevant just because of it's political content since it philosophical and has other values.

I don't think I've ever seen that poster around here since which is a shame, and it's exactly what you were talking about in this thread since a phrase like that is utterly worthless in itself even if true.

It's easier to critique anon in his political interpretations of movies and how that narrows his views of the movies value since he only focuses on reactionary vs. progressive, minority vs. majority, one group vs. another group.

If we had someone posting how every movie is psychological or philosophical, nobody would be as up in arms and if they were a good poster they would know the different types of ways to analyze art with those traditional criticisms. anon interprets films upon a checklist, if it does this, it's good, if it doesn't do this, it's bad. Also, his ego shines through in conversations and knowing how he looks at history in general pisses a lot of people off.

I want to thank you for your thoughtful contribution to this thread. Even though there are things that you say here that I don't agree with, such as your "checklist" comment, it's clear that you're approaching this conversation with a level head and aren't filled with hate and anger. Contrary to popular belief, I actually don't have a problem with disagreement, but I do have a problem with people attacking me in obviously hypocritical, prejudicial, and hateful ways, and it's clear that you're not engaging in that kind of mindset here. There are a lot of /tele/ who could learn something from you.

Thanks anon, you really helped me understand why his MO irked me so much in the past.

Might I inquire how you became so insightful on this topic ? I imagine few people have ever heard of Jacques Lacan for example.

>>95
I like to read. ; )

Someone obviously doesn't know what "ignore" means.

And obviously someone else might be better off going back and reading the provided proof.