Gone Girl and When Good Movies Happen to Bad People

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

This week's intermission is a nice discussion of what the folks at TVTropes refer to as ''Misaimed Fandom''. Oh, and it was nice to see that Bob was savy enough to discuss the potential implications of the movie's first big twist, I actually wondered if he did when I saw his review.

EDIT:

On a side note, it's not exactly uncommon. Plenty of gangster-movies are loved by people who fantasize about that life-style, or even (supposedly) by actual gangsters.

 

[Entitled]

Like Frozen. People keep pairing Elsa and Anna together as a romantic couple...

What?

How in the fuck?!

WHAT?!

http://www.reddit.com/r/Elsanna/

You're welcome.

Also, NSFW.

It's pretty self-evident, really, they had a lot of chemistry in the movie, even without the whole True Love twist (which on it's own still makes sense as an explicit there-is-more-to-love-than-romance message), there was also an awful lot of flirting, and blushing, and comingout, and skinship. So, yeah. Even if the executives certainly wouldn't have wanted even any lesbians in a Disney feature, let alone incest, it's almost certain that the animators and the screenwriters played with the idea intentionally.

 

[WindKnight]

Like Frozen. People keep pairing Elsa and Anna together as a romantic couple...

What?

How in the fuck?!

WHAT?!

In short, incest is a fetish, especially between siblings of the same gender, as that at least avoids the interbreeding angle (but still plows right into all the other icky stuff associated with it)

 

[the December King]

Bob can you please just write one review or article without attacking one group of people. The author wanted to show that women can be just as evil as men and had something to say about modern media and modern feminism. You seem to also not realize that some feminists will completely misinterpret the meaning of the film, claiming it promotes victim blaming and demonizes all women.

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you? Or are just trying to make yourself seem more "progressive"?

After last weeks featured review, and now this, I am beginning to wonder as well. Why so much bile?

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Bob can you please just write one review or article without attacking one group of people. The author wanted to show that women can be just as evil as men and had something to say about modern media and modern feminism. You seem to also not realize that some feminists will completely misinterpret the meaning of the film, claiming it promotes victim blaming and demonizes all women.

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you? Or are just trying to make yourself seem more "progressive"?

Because the precise thing he is calling out here, people who will use this movie as an example of how all women who complain about abuse or rape are just lying about it and are simply crazy psycho bitches, is both in line with what the author intended (who, as has been quoted above, wrote this to say that women can be pragmatically evil, just like men, not that all women who complain about stuff are terrible liars), and is an actually defensible behavior. The people Bob is calling out here are scum. If your first reaction to any claim of abuse or harassment is that it is a total lie, then you are a broken person. If you are the type of persona aching for the masculine virtues and society of old, crying for a simpler world where men were men and women were unimportant, you are worthy of this kind of dismissal. If you look at the world and can only see how unfair it is for men, never seeing the constricting roles and expectations that make it so, and instead just blame the horrible womenfolk for your pains, you are being purposefully ignorant.

Bob is not calling out the idea that women can be as evil as men. Bob is calling out the idea that all women are inherently evil. That is the likely terrible lesson that some people will take from this movie, and that is a shame.

 

[C. Cain]

I think people read whatever they want to read into it, regardless of the authorial intent.

Like Frozen. People keep pairing Elsa and Anna together as a romantic couple even though they're both, you know, sisters. Now, does that mean the creators of Frozen support incest or lesbian relationships? No. Is it wrong to interpret as such? Depends on who you ask.

People will consume and digest it however they wish. Just put forward your opinion and things will get sorted out.

It's pretty self-evident, really, they had a lot of chemistry in the movie, even without the whole True Love twist (which on it's own still makes sense as an explicit there-is-more-to-love-than-romance message), there was also an awful lot of flirting, and blushing, and comingout, and skinship. So, yeah. Even if the executives certainly wouldn't have wanted even any lesbians in a Disney feature, let alone incest, it's almost certain that the animators and the screenwriters played with the idea intentionally.

There's a difference between Frozen and Gone Girl:

In Frozen these extremely creepy interpretations are subtext.
In Gone Girl the sociopathy is part of the text. At least according to Bob.

 

[Nixou]

The people Bob is calling out here are scum

Scum which by the way has been polluting his blogs and the comment sections/forums of online venues associated with him for a very long time.

Regarding the movie twist itself, the most important part of the "she-devil" type of character is the devil part: that is, to be even remotely believable, this particular bogeyman must be so hyper-competent that she cannot be presented as anything else than a one-in-ten-million-chance, rolled-18s-in-every-stats-at-birth, freak of nature whose very harmfulness walks hand in hand with her rarity. Which underlines even more the dishonesty: the very existence, to quote sylocat, of "circlejerking #gg assholes" would be an impossibility: they'd be at best a dying breed too busy hiding to stay alive to be able to complain about anything on the internet.

 

[C. Cain]

(...) I recently learned that Bob has some pretty heavy feminist leanings, and may even identify as a SJW.

Seriously? Did you just use the term SJW with a straight face? Please tell me you're being facetious.

With that in mind, you can actually taste the disdain for men in the article-- it's dripping with resentment for "masculinity". (...)

No. No, it's not. There's no disdain for men per se in the article. However, there is a certain disdain for men with a specific attitude in this article. It is also not dripping with resentment for masculinity. It doesn't even mention masculinity.

The article is about people who are disregarding the subtext in favour of the text itself.

 

[Vault101]

good article and something I have thourght myself

another interesting note is a while ago a read an article on slate that the famous "cool girl" speech and the imagery used in that scene could somewhat confuse its intended meaning

 

[Plinglebob]

This article tries to have a point, but uses its examples so badly it misses it entirely.

It says that liking Tyler Durden (the more directly negative character in the film) for all the wrong reasons is a bad thing and that he's worried that there will be the same reaction with people hating Amy again, for the wrong reasons. If both of these can exist, why not the other side? People who hate Tyler Durden because he espouses an attitude towards masculinity that people dislike and people who will like Amy because they see her as an empowerment figure and a woman who controls her own life. Would they be just as bad?

 

[Sylocat]

Regarding the movie twist itself, the most important part of the "she-devil" type of character is the devil part: that is, to be even remotely believable, this particular bogeyman must be so hyper-competent that she cannot be presented as anything else than a one-in-ten-million-chance, rolled-18s-in-every-stats-at-birth, freak of nature whose very harmfulness walks hand in hand with her rarity.

Sort of like what Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian would need to pull off half the stuff they get accused of.

 

[Vault101]

Makes me wonder if schools should have mandatory courses where students can learn to fully understand the concept of filmmaking and its deeper meanings. And I'm not talking about a college course, I mean a class in middle and high school. Cause if we're ever going to end the shit film careers of Adam Sandler and Michael Bay, young men and women need to understand that some garbage movies are just that.

Also, we might want to put in a mandatory debate/discussion course since that's another thing our culture needs to be educated on.

but even if the intent of a movie (or how an issue is framed) sails over peoples heads people can still have their personal interpretations, knowing the Author of Fight Club doesn't exactly endorse Tyler Durden doesn't mean somone still won't think he's the best thing ever....or to a lesser extent think that Miranda Preistly in The Devil Wears Prada can do whatever she wants and andi is just being entitled and whiney

Sort of like what Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian would need to pull off half the stuff they get accused of.

[sub/]but the moonbase is real[/sub]

Rule 34, son. If it exists, there's porn of it.
OT: I'm not worried about the kind of guys Bob described in his article getting the wrong message from Gone Girl; what's really scary is the thought of someone thinking Amy is a role model to follow, like Tyler Durden was by the douchebags of yore.

I can't see that happening....at least not in a tyler durden way, his schtick was essentially being compelling and having revolutionary "ideas"

of coarse there's always that element of admiration even if you know theyre still terrible people, for an obscure example classic liturature "Dangerous Liaisons" one of the main charachter's is a upper class socialite who knows the world she lives in is bullshit (18th century) so she puts all her effort into fucking with people (and fucking people) and there's something cathartic about her being such an evil genius

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Regarding the movie twist itself, the most important part of the "she-devil" type of character is the devil part: that is, to be even remotely believable, this particular bogeyman must be so hyper-competent that she cannot be presented as anything else than a one-in-ten-million-chance, rolled-18s-in-every-stats-at-birth, freak of nature whose very harmfulness walks hand in hand with her rarity.

Sort of like what Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian would need to pull off half the stuff they get accused of.

Which is relavent to the discussion... how?

 

[TheRiddler]

Sort of as an aside, I totally get why people got the "wrong" message from Fight Club. I mean, if the point of the movie is to ultimately grow up and reject your inner Tyler Durden, why the fuck does it spend two hours making youthful nihilism as seductive and profound as possible? Obviously, I get that this is part of the point. Show how shiny the new thing is but then show why we shouldn't have it... but the movie seriously glossed over the latter.

I mean, as a counterexample, take the Great Gatsby. First third of the story, we see Gatsby get built up as a man of wealth and mystery. But we meet him in the second act, and we see his back story. He becomes relateable, but human. And by the last part, you see the fundamental weakness in his character and he becomes a character to be pitied, not admired.

Fight Club got rid of the second part and crammed the third part of this journey into about 20 minutes. Is it any surprise we end up, rather than happy to have moved beyond Tyler, disappointed that he had lost?

 

[Tono Makt]

Bob can you please just write one review or article without attacking one group of people. The author wanted to show that women can be just as evil as men and had something to say about modern media and modern feminism. You seem to also not realize that some feminists will completely misinterpret the meaning of the film, claiming it promotes victim blaming and demonizes all women.

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you? Or are just trying to make yourself seem more "progressive"?

After last weeks featured review, and now this, I am beginning to wonder as well. Why so much bile?

Most likely it's simply a way for him to strike back at what he perceives #GamerGate to be, but by doing it in this way he can entirely negate any actual criticism that he's insulting the supporters of #GamerGate. There are too many #GamerGate supporters who are entirely reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent people of all genders, ethnicities, sexualities and political leanings for him to keep making blanket anti-#GamerGate statements without major blowback, but the Venn diagram between #GamerGate supporters and "People Who Love Fight Club Wrong" is metaphorically a large circle with a small zit out one side.

So he can spout all sorts of bile at them - much of it likely simmering for years as he watches the audience enjoy something for all the "wrong" reasons, something his cultured, educated and intelligent mind simply can't comprehend. And I would be very surprised if he had not spent literally hours of his life typing up attacks on those fans in various online forums (possibly even IMDB) and found that he's run into the solid granite wall that is "Authorial intent is not the same as Audience Interpretation", didn't bring a single person to watching Fight Club in the "right" way and it's festered in him for years - and kill two birds with one stone. And the best part is that it's likely impossible to actually prove this is the case, so Bob can simply point back at me and say "Hey, I'm just talking about Fight Club. You're the one bringing #GamerGate into this." and smugly sit back knowing that even if I'm right, I'll never be able to prove it. It's a win-win situation for him.


Regarding fans liking something for the "Wrong Reasons", that argument has noodles for bones. Why someone likes or dislikes something is subjective, and it's extremely possible for one person to love something and another to hate something for the exact same reason, or for one person to take something entirely differently than the author/creator intended up to and including the exact opposite of how they intended it. And none of those are "wrong" - they're just opposed to your own viewpoint. The only place it starts to even potentially move into an authentic discussion about "right" and "wrong" is in how fans express their liking and even more importantly, what actions they take based on that influence. Posting on Facebook "Durr... Amasing Amy is totes evil girl, all grls are Amasing Amy!" is not a "wrong" way to like this movie; it's an expression of free speech. Whether we agree with it or not is barely relevant and for the most part, completely subjective. If we agree with it than it's the "right" way. If we disagree with it it's the "wrong" way.

Regarding Fight Club, it's also possible to see Tyler Durden for what he is... but at the same time see that he has some points with merit. Dismissing those points because the messenger is objectionable is a form of the ad hominem fallacy and should be no more welcomed than accepting them simply because someone accepts the "authority" of Tyler Durden. (Which, amusingly, Bob did with extreme prejudice by Godwinning that part in the actual article. So now if anyone actually tries to debate those points, they may have to prove they aren't a nazi. Good job, Bob. Good job.)

Ironically what may come out of this is an understanding that women are actually complex beings; we pigeonhole them into the Sinner or Saint, Mother or Prostitute, Pure or Sullied dichotomies all the time. And we rarely actually give them control over their own actions; why is Woman X "Evil"? She was abused (generally raped) by a man in her past. Why is Woman Y so saintly in the face of so much adversity? Because she's a Strong Woman. But from the sounds of it, the woman in this movie (Amazing Amy) is just straight up evil. There isn't a flashback scene to where 10yr old Amy backs into her bedroom in fear as a shadowy (male) figure approaches, or a flashback to where she was a happy and nice girl who got victimized by a jerk. She's just straight up evil and as such, she's responsible for her actions. She has Agency. No one chose her path for her.

Getting people to actually internalize the idea that women can have agency over their lives, that they aren't simply victims of the agency of men, that could be a very good thing that might come out of liking Gone Girl for the "Wrong" reasons.

 

[Vault101]

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you? Or are just trying to make yourself seem more "progressive"?

mabye not masculinity but [i/]toxic[/i] masculinity?

 

[Sylocat]

Regarding fans liking something for the "Wrong Reasons", that argument has noodles for bones. Why someone likes or dislikes something is subjective, and it's extremely possible for one person to love something and another to hate something for the exact same reason, or for one person to take something entirely differently than the author/creator intended up to and including the exact opposite of how they intended it. And none of those are "wrong" - they're just opposed to your own viewpoint. The only place it starts to even potentially move into an authentic discussion about "right" and "wrong" is in how fans express their liking and even more importantly, what actions they take based on that influence. Posting on Facebook "Durr... Amasing Amy is totes evil girl, all grls are Amasing Amy!" is not a "wrong" way to like this movie; it's an expression of free speech. Whether we agree with it or not is barely relevant and for the most part, completely subjective. If we agree with it than it's the "right" way. If we disagree with it it's the "wrong" way.

Since you're so eager to point out logical fallacies, I should point out that the "dictionary debate," IE, arguing over the definition of words being used rather than the actual point being conveyed by said words, is a common cheap tactic.

Ironically what may come out of this is an understanding that women are actually complex beings; we pigeonhole them into the Sinner or Saint, Mother or Prostitute, Pure or Sullied dichotomies all the time. And we rarely actually give them control over their own actions; why is Woman X "Evil"? She was abused (generally raped) by a man in her past. Why is Woman Y so saintly in the face of so much adversity? Because she's a Strong Woman. But from the sounds of it, the woman in this movie (Amazing Amy) is just straight up evil. There isn't a flashback scene to where 10yr old Amy backs into her bedroom in fear as a shadowy (male) figure approaches, or a flashback to where she was a happy and nice girl who got victimized by a jerk. She's just straight up evil and as such, she's responsible for her actions. She has Agency. No one chose her path for her.

Getting people to actually internalize the idea that women can have agency over their lives, that they aren't simply victims of the agency of men, that could be a very good thing that might come out of liking Gone Girl for the "Wrong" reasons.

That's... actually true. I remember Hope Chapman posting about something like this the other day (EDIT: and, surprise, she's talking about Gone Girl now on her Twitter). The thing is, respecting said agency is (apparently) one of the things the movie was deliberately attempting to preach. And what people are distressed about is that, well, that message will be lost on people who will consider the film to be ammo used in their hate campaigns. It's a pretty simple and obvious problem, probably not worth dedicating an entire column to, but oh well.

 

[Zykmiester]

Bob can you please just write one review or article without attacking one group of people. The author wanted to show that women can be just as evil as men and had something to say about modern media and modern feminism. You seem to also not realize that some feminists will completely misinterpret the meaning of the film, claiming it promotes victim blaming and demonizes all women.

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you? Or are just trying to make yourself seem more "progressive"?

After last weeks featured review, and now this, I am beginning to wonder as well. Why so much bile?

Most likely it's simply a way for him to strike back at what he perceives #GamerGate to be, but by doing it in this way he can entirely negate any actual criticism that he's insulting the supporters of #GamerGate. There are too many #GamerGate supporters who are entirely reasonable, thoughtful and intelligent people of all genders, ethnicities, sexualities and political leanings for him to keep making blanket anti-#GamerGate statements without major blowback, but the Venn diagram between #GamerGate supporters and "People Who Love Fight Club Wrong" is metaphorically a large circle with a small zit out one side.

So he can spout all sorts of bile at them - much of it likely simmering for years as he watches the audience enjoy something for all the "wrong" reasons, something his cultured, educated and intelligent mind simply can't comprehend. And I would be very surprised if he had not spent literally hours of his life typing up attacks on those fans in various online forums (possibly even IMDB) and found that he's run into the solid granite wall that is "Authorial intent is not the same as Audience Interpretation", didn't bring a single person to watching Fight Club in the "right" way and it's festered in him for years - and kill two birds with one stone. And the best part is that it's likely impossible to actually prove this is the case, so Bob can simply point back at me and say "Hey, I'm just talking about Fight Club. You're the one bringing #GamerGate into this." and smugly sit back knowing that even if I'm right, I'll never be able to prove it. It's a win-win situation for him.


Regarding fans liking something for the "Wrong Reasons", that argument has noodles for bones. Why someone likes or dislikes something is subjective, and it's extremely possible for one person to love something and another to hate something for the exact same reason, or for one person to take something entirely differently than the author/creator intended up to and including the exact opposite of how they intended it. And none of those are "wrong" - they're just opposed to your own viewpoint. The only place it starts to even potentially move into an authentic discussion about "right" and "wrong" is in how fans express their liking and even more importantly, what actions they take based on that influence. Posting on Facebook "Durr... Amasing Amy is totes evil girl, all grls are Amasing Amy!" is not a "wrong" way to like this movie; it's an expression of free speech. Whether we agree with it or not is barely relevant and for the most part, completely subjective. If we agree with it than it's the "right" way. If we disagree with it it's the "wrong" way.

Regarding Fight Club, it's also possible to see Tyler Durden for what he is... but at the same time see that he has some points with merit. Dismissing those points because the messenger is objectionable is a form of the ad hominem fallacy and should be no more welcomed than accepting them simply because someone accepts the "authority" of Tyler Durden. (Which, amusingly, Bob did with extreme prejudice by Godwinning that part in the actual article. So now if anyone actually tries to debate those points, they may have to prove they aren't a nazi. Good job, Bob. Good job.)

Ironically what may come out of this is an understanding that women are actually complex beings; we pigeonhole them into the Sinner or Saint, Mother or Prostitute, Pure or Sullied dichotomies all the time. And we rarely actually give them control over their own actions; why is Woman X "Evil"? She was abused (generally raped) by a man in her past. Why is Woman Y so saintly in the face of so much adversity? Because she's a Strong Woman. But from the sounds of it, the woman in this movie (Amazing Amy) is just straight up evil. There isn't a flashback scene to where 10yr old Amy backs into her bedroom in fear as a shadowy (male) figure approaches, or a flashback to where she was a happy and nice girl who got victimized by a jerk. She's just straight up evil and as such, she's responsible for her actions. She has Agency. No one chose her path for her.

Getting people to actually internalize the idea that women can have agency over their lives, that they aren't simply victims of the agency of men, that could be a very good thing that might come out of liking Gone Girl for the "Wrong" reasons.

Well someone gets it. I don't believe many people would really like this film because it somehow re-enforces everything they believe about women. In fact I'm pretty sure more people on Bob's side would hate it and try to call it out as patriarchal propaganda. The book raised some interesting issues that most neo-feminists try to shut down and call them misogynist. Could you imagine how it would go down if the author was a man, he would be crucified for some of the topics brought up. Hell Bob would be right up there with the mob, pitchfork in hand.

It's amazing how someone who thinks he is so smart completely misses the point of the novel of Starship Troopers. It's not pro-military, it's pro-soldier. The novel was about the poor soldiers thrown into the grinder of war by their leaders so far away that they are in no danger.

Also I really loved Tyler Durden, not because of some overly macho bullshit that Bob seems to think he only represents. To me, Tyler represented freedom and to live your own life the way you want. To not let other people and things tie you down and control you. He was also charming as all hell.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Movies like Fight Club are not alone in this. Black culture tends to worship Scarface for all the wrong reasons, propping Tony Montana up as an iconic gangsta model they wish to become and not the amoral sociopath who should be hated if not pitied.

And the other side I've explained to quite a few of my friends who've gone the "thug-life" route, that there was a point to the whole story and they apparently missed the end or just cherry-picked the "dude is rich as hell" part and missed the entire "gets shot in the back after losing everything and everyone he cared about to his own arrogance" part. People and their damn self-blinding natures.

OT: Shouldn't the real story be that Tyler Perry can actually act and has just been holding himself back with his Madea craze? Ok ok... kidding aside (Tyler Perry is a good actor, thats not the joke).
Yeah people won't get it, and just like Fight Club I too see the oncoming rush of morons with equal parts dread and worry. *sigh* Dammit people, y u disappoint the shit out of me constantly.

 

[C. Cain]

(...)

It's amazing how someone who thinks he is so smart completely misses the point of the novel of Starship Troopers. It's not pro-military, it's pro-soldier. The novel was about the poor soldiers thrown into the grinder of war by their leaders so far away that they are in no danger.

(...)

It's been a few years since I read Heinlein, but that's an odd message. He depicts self-sacrifice as noble. He directly states that normal democracies are flawed, because people can't simply vote for whatever they want and get it. According to him that would require, to paraphrase, blood, sweat, and tears. He thinks that suffrage has to be earned by those willing to serve society.

Or in other words being thrown into the grinder so that their homes are not in danger is shown to be a good thing. There is no ambiguity as to whether the war they are fighting is justified. I don't see how any of this can be construed to be an indictment of their leaders at home. Especially since experiencing this kind of service is required of them to become leaders in the first place.