Gone Girl and When Good Movies Happen to Bad People

[johnnybleu]

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.

I suppose it all depends on your point of view. Someone who shares Bob's position on this matter could fail to see how the article might be inflammatory. Oh, and how is anyone other than the director (and other individuals involved in the production) able to make any claim as to what the subtext was?

I tend to adopt a pretty neutral stance, and what I took from the article was someone hastily jumping up to defend the narrative-- being the one that men are all violent rapists, and that women are the perpetually oppressed victims. It's much like if there was a movie that painted certain aspects of Christianity in a negative light, and you had a minister swiftly going online to write articles about how considering points made in the movie is a sin/heresy/blasphemy, and all who agree with it are themselves sinners/heretics/blasphemers. It seems clear that Bob knows some people (like MRAs, for example) will see the movie, point at it, and say "See? What did we tell you?!". He's just making sure that we understand that anyone who makes such claims actually missed the point of a good movie, and is one of the "bad people".

Of course, I could also be one of the bad people that missed the point of the article.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think the weird thing is my wife and her two female friends who went with me to see the movie HATED Amy and thought she was an unrepentant psychopath.

I was more sympathetic. She's a woman trapped in a role assigned to her from birth by her parents then the same thing happens to her husband who tries to turn her into a shrewish housewife he can cheat on with impunity. Basically, he tries to BOX Amy and turn her into his image of her.

Not even someone HE likes but someone he can disrespect.

Amy's horrific acts are striking out at the culture which never let her be her.

 

[j1015]

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.

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.

Wow, what a truly offensive statement. I don't know what color you are and it doesn't matter. Even if you are Black and American you have no idea about "black culture". The culture you're trying to stereotype is the hip-hop culture, not black culture, and you're getting that wrong too. My 61 year old Dad doesn't know what Scarface is and wouldn't even finish it if he did. Many of us haven't seen the movie or don't like it. It's not required viewing in all inner-city schools, as you probably imagine.

But even had you fired your moronic statement at the right subculture, you still would have gotten it wrong. Highly successful people such as Sean Combs, Jay-Z, Russell Simmons, Steve Stoute, etc have commented on the fact that it's not Tony Montana's gangster lifestyle that is praised among anyone with a brain. But it's him coming from nothing to get everything he was after, a dream many in minority and lower class communities can empathize with. If you'd actually speak with someone of the "hip-hop culture" who is doing something with his/her life, they would tell you, as I'm telling you, that Tony Montana was a sociopath who was wayyyyy too into his sister and that he didn't realize his limitations. And that his personality is not one to be emulated. The one guy you passed on the street talking about how "sick" the last scene was how much blow was on Tony's desk does not represent all of either culture.



With regards to Bob's article, he may be right. In fact he probably is. WHO CARES!?!?! Robert, you enjoyed it. I'm probably going to enjoy it and some immature, woman hating lowlifes are going to enjoy it. How is this messing with your life? I'll never understand snobs and their desire to think their like or dislike of something is superior to someone else's like or dislike. How does it make you better than them, Bob? They're making judgments based on limited surface information. So are you. Yours is better? What? Because it's "right"? They aren't affecting anyone. They can't even get our of their parents basement or from behind a computer to rise up, make themselves presentable and vote, let alone make a real difference. I went to that virgin site that went belly up and a lot of those dudes REALLY lived in their parents basement. Your "hating" (your word) them is just as pathetic as their hatred for Anita and Zoe.

The fact that you think that when you tell someone you like Gone Girl they MIGHT think you MIGHT be one of this pigs is the very definition of a first world problem and whether you like to admit it or not is just as much of a bad sign of the current state of the world as their opinions are.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

On a related note, I wonder if there will also be a contingent of women who look up to Amy the way those men looked up to Tyler. I mean, I haven't seen the film so I don't know if Amy actually had some agenda or if she just woke up one day and said "You know what, I could probably pull this off. Let's try it and see what happens!" because she's just that kind of insane. It sounds like it was more likely the latter, but I could certainly see some disenfranchised women treating her as a role model anyway.

I do not, however, expect them to ever be particularly vocal about it, at least not within earshot of the likes of me.

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.

Good lord yes. We've had classes that revolve around literature since time immemorial; it's high time the educational systems of the world sat up and took notice that other mediums exist and have artistic merit that deserves examination at the pre-college level. While the "academic world" is coming to grips with television and video games as legitimate art forms, you'd get the impression that schoolteachers still think movies are all junk food for the mind. Or at least the people in charge of their funding.

 

[Darkmantle]

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.

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.

Mr. Q that class is Language arts, if it is not sufficient in your area it should be improved, not replaced. That is the class where literary and poetic devices should be gone over, I do not think we need a specific one for films, just a better one in general.

That being said, I think my English classes were pretty good, and I disagree with Bob's interpretation. Many of the points are valid, he name checks the issues with modern press and family/community structures, but then fails to make the leap that these "pillars of society" and the gender roles they project are harmful to both sexes, and one should not be considered to be losing ground or a "misogynist" for acknowledging that.

Which is primarily what a lot of the more reasonable voices in the men's right's movement are bringing to the table. Now, as a former feminist and currently not subscribed to either "side" so to speak (I'd consider myself egalitarian if pressed) I believe that puts me in a good position to see the merits and flaws of said sides. Now there is no doubt that there are "MRAs" of the "women should be in the home, pregnant and servile" variety, I don't think that gives anyone the ground to dismiss the valid issues raised by such a movement. Especially considering that feminism can and does have a darker side, namely the SCUM manefesto and it's more recent iteration #killallmen.

So no bob, the issues raised such as unfairness in custody courts, and courts in general for that matter, should not be dismissed so easily, nor should domestic violence against men, which is my personal "project" so to speak. And let me assure you and everyone else, I didn't become interested in DV against men to "stick it" to feminism or women in general, I did it because I have seen first hand the effects, and the difficulty of getting help, for a male victim, as well as the prevalence of male victims, considering that many so-called feminists tell me it rarely, if ever, ever happens.

It happens enough to care about, and I wish all equality movements would recognize that.

 

[Supdupadog]

People (on my twitter) have refereed to this movie as the harsh kind of feminism. Not the happy kind that frames stories as equality being achieved and everyone is happy and the world gets better, but the angry kind focused on society and it's contemptible pressures. It shakes its fists at the world, disgusted by which it sees.

It's also been called a grown-up movie too adult for many who will see it. A la fight club.

But, ultimately, this movie is about women. It's about our culture. Bad people will miss the point, because they aren't smart or perceptive enough. But what are you gonna do.

 

[Nixou]

But it's him coming from nothing to get everything he was after, a dream many in minority and lower class communities can empathize with.

Also known as the American Dream.

The one guy you passed on the street talking about how "sick" the last scene was how much blow was on Tony's desk does not represent all of either culture.

And that's not even counting the great number of people who love this last scene for the cinematography and see it as an allegory for the fall awaiting anyone who allows their hubris and/or misplaced anger to control them.

***

But, ultimately, this movie is about women. It's about our culture. Bad people will miss the point, because they aren't smart or perceptive enough

No: bad people who concluded that the status quo is beneficial to them but who know they can't afford to aknowledge it publicly because of all the loathsome things it would reveal about themselves will pretend to miss the point.

 

[Charles Phipps]

People (on my twitter) have refereed to this movie as the harsh kind of feminism. Not the happy kind that frames stories as equality being achieved and everyone is happy and the world gets better, but the angry kind focused on society and it's contemptible pressures. It shakes its fists at the world, disgusted by which it sees.

It's also been called a grown-up movie too adult for many who will see it. A la fight club.

But, ultimately, this movie is about women. It's about our culture. Bad people will miss the point, because they aren't smart or perceptive enough. But what are you gonna do.

I agree. I think Amy deliberately taps into the zeigeist which created the Misaimed Fandom of Cersei Lannister. Martin created a contemptible one-note character but missed that many of his female readers would sympathize with her actions because the horror of patriarchal Westeros society would drive ANYONE crazy who didn't want to submit--and does, in Arya's case, too.

Amy is the way she is because she was raised to be the perfect daughter then expected to be the perfect wife.

She decided to burn down the life of the person who tried to force her into that role instead.

Especially after he showed the kind of disrespect he did.

 

[Nixou]

Martin created a contemptible one-note character but missed that many of his female readers would sympathize with her actions because the horror of patriarchal Westeros society would drive ANYONE crazy who didn't want to submit

Given that A Song of Ice and Fire recurring theme is how medieval fantasy settings are fucking horrible to live in, turning Cersei into a sympathetic character was most probably deliberate on Martin's part.

 

[C. Cain]

I suppose it all depends on your point of view. Someone who shares Bob's position on this matter could fail to see how the article might be inflammatory.

Not necessarily. I acknowledge that the article might be inflammatory if you count yourself among the people it critiques. I fail to see why anyone would want to do that, but it's one's pejorative.

Oh, and how is anyone other than the director (and other individuals involved in the production) able to make any claim as to what the subtext was?

That's a very good question. It depends on which school of thought you subscribe to. Suffice it to say that New Criticism, which dismisses authorial intent in its entirety, is still very popular.

I myself am partial to semiotic literary criticism.

I tend to adopt a pretty neutral stance, and what I took from the article was someone hastily jumping up to defend the narrative-- being the one that men are all violent rapists, and that women are the perpetually oppressed victims.

The narrative that all men are violent rapists, and that women are the perpetually oppressed victims? Right, I don't believe you. You don't tend to adopt a neutral stance. This is such a reductive statement. You are blithely dismissing all nuance and thereby reducing opposing viewpoints to the most extreme and shrill position imaginable.

(...) It seems clear that Bob knows some people (like MRAs, for example) will see the movie, point at it, and say "See? What did we tell you?!". He's just making sure that we understand that anyone who makes such claims actually missed the point of a good movie, and is one of the "bad people".

Eeyup, pretty much. Except for being "bad people". But here's the thing: this whole article wouldn't raise as much as an eyebrow if we were talking about a harrowing anti-war movie being (mis)taken for a endorsement of war by a certain subset of tone-deaf audience members.

Of course, I could also be one of the bad people that missed the point of the article.

Nah, I think you're merely projecting.

 

[Netrigan]

Still, I too went to that place the second I heard the twist and in some way it's still trading on the dynamic that the woman is usually smarter and far more put together (good or evil) while the man is a lunk-head.

Amusingly, this is my take-away whenever I wander into an Anti-Feminist web-site. Oooh, these evil women are far too organized and smart for us physically superior man. They should shut up and let us win. Only fair.

One thing I think Gone Girl has in common with Fight Club is it features characters with a well-defined world view, which is intentionally bat-shit crazy. Listening to the various commentaries on Fight Club, it's clear no one (not even the author) is behind it, but there's core questions it raises which can't be entirely dismissed. Fight Club is about lost boys struggling to figure out what it means to be a man... and falling victim to a ridiculous ideology simply because it feeds into their more destructive impulses. Gone Girl seems to be about the anger directed at sex roles, with Amy being driven completely around the bend by her anger and resentment... and she ends up using those exact sex roles to trap Affleck in the end. Philosophically, it's the same kind of confused mess as Fight Club, which appears to be the point. It's what happens when mentally unstable but highly intelligent people attempt to deal with the difficult questions raised by life.

 

[Netrigan]

Wait wait wait wait....

So the author of the book admits that she wanted to put a small window on what feminism is, and show women as something other than perfect beings and perpetual victims, and yet you chastise the "average moron" for taking exactly that message out of the movie?

More like the "average moron" does a very simplistic read of it and misses the important nuances of the piece. Rorschach from Watchmen is designed to be absolute crazy, but because he does cool violent stuff which the audience enjoys, large segments of the audience miss the fact that you're supposed to feel uncomfortable about this guy. They only see the surface stuff, the bits where the character is grappling with very real and very important issues... and fail to notice that said character processes it into garbage.

But then we live in a world where people were rooting for Walt in Breaking Bad. That don't think Vick Mackey did anything truly bad. That Jax Teller should get his happy ending. Every complex work involving an anti-hero gets horribly minunderstood by a certain segment of its audience.

 

[Netrigan]

So...the same people that think Starship Troopers is Pro-Militarism?

Starship Troopers is a tough one as it involves quite a number of things Heinlein enthusiastically supports, such as limited democracy.

Even the notion that humanity will survive because they're bigger bastards is a recurring theme. Without Heinlein guiding you, its tough to figure out which impassioned speech is him supporting an idea and which impassioned speech is him world building. Core bits of his beliefs are littered throughout the book. And even then he never really intends us to denounce this society; it's just sci-fi world building where various influences push society down interesting paths.

 

[WindKnight]

So...the same people that think Starship Troopers is Pro-Militarism?

Starship Troopers is a tough one as it involves quite a number of things Heinlein enthusiastically supports, such as limited democracy.

Even the notion that humanity will survive because they're bigger bastards is a recurring theme. Without Heinlein guiding you, its tough to figure out which impassioned speech is him supporting an idea and which impassioned speech is him world building. Core bits of his beliefs are littered throughout the book. And even then he never really intends us to denounce this society; it's just sci-fi world building where various influences push society down interesting paths.

To be fair, I think their talking about the movie which gloriously skewered the novels fascist undertones.

 

[johnnybleu]

I suppose it all depends on your point of view. Someone who shares Bob's position on this matter could fail to see how the article might be inflammatory.

Not necessarily. I acknowledge that the article might be inflammatory if you count yourself among the people it critiques. I fail to see why anyone would want to do that, but it's one's pejorative.

You fail to see why anyone would want to disagree with the article or have a differing opinion?

I tend to adopt a pretty neutral stance, and what I took from the article was someone hastily jumping up to defend the narrative-- being the one that men are all violent rapists, and that women are the perpetually oppressed victims.

The narrative that all men are violent rapists, and that women are the perpetually oppressed victims? Right, I don't believe you. You don't tend to adopt a neutral stance. This is such a reductive statement. You are blithely dismissing all nuance and thereby reducing opposing viewpoints to the most extreme and shrill position imaginable.

Just to be clear, I don't buy into the narrative, nor do I agree with it. But that's essentially the one put forth by modern feminism. Women good, men bad. That's the mantra. I'm perfectly aware that people of every gender are perfectly capable of doing both good and bad things. However, there's still a need to maintain the zeitgeist that women are oppressed, and that men are holding the whip. Again, I'm absolutely not agreeing with this point of view, but it's still there. Also, it should be noted that every institution has their own narrative, and that questioning the narrative brands you a fringe lunatic (in the eyes of those who follow said institution). It's just a self-defense mechanism. In my feeble opinion, this is what the article was-- just making branding those who get any anti-feminism ideas from the movie as simpletons.

(...) It seems clear that Bob knows some people (like MRAs, for example) will see the movie, point at it, and say "See? What did we tell you?!". He's just making sure that we understand that anyone who makes such claims actually missed the point of a good movie, and is one of the "bad people".

Eeyup, pretty much. Except for being "bad people". But here's the thing: this whole article wouldn't raise as much as an eyebrow if we were talking about a harrowing anti-war movie being (mis)taken for a endorsement of war by a certain subset of tone-deaf audience members.

Could just be because gender issues are a hot topic right now. Though I don't quite agree with the statement that getting the "wrong" message from the movie makes you tone-dear. It could just as easily be said that anyone who gets the "right" message is brainwashed. It all depends on your frame of reference. If the director doesn't want any ambiguity in the message (if indeed there is a message), then perhaps a documentary would be the better way to go.

Of course, I could also be one of the bad people that missed the point of the article.

Nah, I think you're merely projecting.

Yeah, sure, what do I know?

 

[Kungfusam]

Moviebob has to realise at some that he's spewing cultist garbage not actually facts, just because he's had an easy life where his parents to care of everything doesn't make it true of men

Some of us actually had troubled childhoods, and to live with the scars

 

[C. Cain]

Snip

Alright, let's take a step back. Point-by-point discussions are fun, but I think we are losing sight of the bigger picture. How do we evaluate the message of any given piece of art? We contextualise. It's about the way the entire portrayal of each entity adds up together through the action themselves, through reasoning, through the tone, through the subtext, and ultimately within our ability to process it.

Some interpretations are more valid than others. We don't worship at the altar of some sort of institutionalised narrative. This isn't a church. There is no dogma. Some works of art are ambiguous, others are pretty straightforward. And if you interpret a seemingly straightforward story differently then you better have good reasons for it.

This article does two things:

1) It critiques people who interpret any given piece of art solely through the text and stick to it even if a more holistic approach points to a very different interpretation. Yes, it may sound snobbish, but you can indeed miss the point.

2) It calls out two specific groups of people whose behaviour is ostensibly bad for society as a whole.

I can see why 2) could be considered inflammatory for the two groups in question, i.e. the would be "space monkeys" and the folks who use the term "misandrist she-devil" without irony. What I fail to see is how this is inflammatory in a general sense, unless you object to Bob being somewhat rude to these people.

 

[j1015]

Snip

What I fail to see is how this is inflammatory in a general sense, unless you object to Bob being somewhat rude to these people.

That's exactly what I object to. Being correct doesn't make it okay for Bob to be inflammatory or condescending. It defeats any purpose he might have teaching some of these people, or at least trying to get them to see, understand and respect his point of view. By writing the article this way he seems like an angry teen who is no better than the people he criticizes. There is still something to be said for being the bigger person and acting like, especially if you have a platform with a significant following.

 

[Promethax]

I'm beginning to think that Bob doesn't view movies as art as much as he views them as ammunition in some sort of perceived culture war.

A very problematic view of art, to say the least.

 

[C. Cain]

That's exactly what I object to. Being correct doesn't make it okay for Bob to be inflammatory or condescending. It defeats any purpose he might have teaching some of these people, or at least trying to get them to see, understand and respect his point of view. By writing the article this way he seems like an angry teen who is no better than the people he criticizes. There is still something to be said for being the bigger person and acting like, especially if you have a platform with a significant following.

Personally I didn't think it was too inflammatory or condescending, especially in comparison to the hideous behaviour of people shielded by the internet's anonymity. That said, I concur. A confrontational or dismissive tone can be detrimental to the discussion at large.