Gone Girl and When Good Movies Happen to Bad People

[Entitled]

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.

Why should it be an either-or choice?

Art has always been an important form of ammunition in culture wars. Hell, Culture wars have always been largely about art.

After all, art *is* culture. It doesn't just comment on culture, or influences culture, but it is in the very core of what we hold important about how a society identifies itself.

 

[Fox12]

A bit elitist, aren't we Bob?

Damn those whiskey drinking, drooling, ignorant masses. It must be real hard to be part of the enlightened minority, my friend. It's a good thing we have people like you to show us the way. Don't worry, I get it. We don't want to dirty our hands by associating ourselves with the popcorn munching peasants. Thank God for Bob.

Because I'm sure the vast majority of people really didn't "get" that Durden was the villain.

(I'm willing to wager that most of you get the sarcasm, because unlike Bob, I think you're smarter then a rock).

 

[SKBPinkie]

I swear - Bob seems to live a life of perceived slights.

Dude, you don't need to get ultra defensive about this stuff. Literally no one's talking about this movie in that way. Just as the author said - it's interesting to see women being given different roles. Heck, they're almost never the villains (at least interesting villains).

Oh, and far more importantly - it's a movie, not a documentary of any sort - if people are seeing what they want to see and drawing conclusions on real life based on it, then the fundamental problem here is that they're idiots.

 

[Charles Phipps]

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.

I would think so but Martin went out of his way to give Jaime better qualities while reinforcing Cersei's darker ones. Also, the show is going with a much lighter touch regarding.

 

[Charles Phipps]

Anyway, Amy is sort of a Tyler Durden figure so it's kind of ironic. Amy's motivation is that her husband treats her like a piece of garbage and a disposable one at that. When he moves back to their house, he basically thinks of her as his nagging wife from New York because he wants to pigeon hole her into that role.

The problem is, as it's clear, Amy has a berserk button and that's being pigeon holed by her sex.

The Daughter
The Girlfriend
The Nagging Wife

She goes CRAZY when people try to dehumanize her because she grew up being dehumanized by her parents.

In a way, it's all Nick's fault--which is something I'd NEVER say to most victims of a sociopath but SURELY he had to have known his wife has ONE thing she hates.

 

[vid87]

It's what happens when mentally unstable but highly intelligent people attempt to deal with the difficult questions raised by life.

Add Lizabeth Salander and, to a lesser extent, Mark Zuckerberg to that definition and that seems to sum up Fincher's MO.

 

[JarinArenos]

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

This was my first thought as well.

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

Oh I could talk for a long time about this one. But to be brief; you are not "men." You are a "man." The experiences you've had, and those of the relatively few guys who get together and ***** on the same forums you do, do not represent men as a whole. I've had a "troubled childhood" myself, I've felt pretty much every form of social ostracizing there is, but I don't whine about it and use it as some justification to lash out. And do you know why? Because individuals are not demographics. Guys like us; those with rough pasts, the abused, the bullied, the overlooked, the harassed...we're the MINORITY. Most guys have a pretty good life. In particular straight white males.

Your past is an aberration, not a justification.

Get over it and stop letting it define you. You had a rough life, cry me a river. You can either move on, grow up, and become a man with a better life, or you can stay a pissed off little boy bitching to whoever will listen and lashing out at anyone that dares question your delusions. The choice is yours.

Please note that "getting over it" can and should include setting aside the "must-always-be-tough-male" self image and admitting you might have some deep issues to deal with. Break that mold you've been shoved into and go find the help you need.

 

[This Place is DEAD]

You do it wrong, Bob. A critic is to critique movies, not moviegoers. He calls films hideous, not people. And he clearly doesn't do the "You're dumb, I'm smart" thing all the time. If he does, he will rightfully lose his 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.

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

Heinlein complained about people thinking the book was pro-military. He never understood how the book won the Hugo because he got far more criticism about that story than any other he had written and he kind of got into this "and all of them are wrong" mindset about it.

Even if you're well-versed in Heinlein's work, trying to figure out what he is and isn't advocating is tough. But then I never got the sense that Heinlein took (or understood) criticism very well. He had that "my way or the highway" kind of attitude and a lot of his beliefs were at odds with his other beliefs. He was a hardcore Libertarian who advocated forcing the U.S. population to decentralize in order to survive a nuclear war. The objection to Starship Troopers likely centered around his limited democracy idea (something he was dead serious about), not necessarily the pro-military way he chose to employ it in Starship Troopers; but the two ideas are so wrapped around each other, it was easy for him to dismiss any criticism of what he truly believed by hiding behind the bits he didn't.

 

[Netrigan]

Anyway, Amy is sort of a Tyler Durden figure so it's kind of ironic. Amy's motivation is that her husband treats her like a piece of garbage and a disposable one at that. When he moves back to their house, he basically thinks of her as his nagging wife from New York because he wants to pigeon hole her into that role.

The problem is, as it's clear, Amy has a berserk button and that's being pigeon holed by her sex.

The Daughter
The Girlfriend
The Nagging Wife

She goes CRAZY when people try to dehumanize her because she grew up being dehumanized by her parents.

In a way, it's all Nick's fault--which is something I'd NEVER say to most victims of a sociopath but SURELY he had to have known his wife has ONE thing she hates.

I think the movie is going one step further. It's suggesting he's almost as big of a sociopath as she is. He's just going through life putting on masks.

As the movie unfolds, it calls a lot of his personality into question. He likes to present himself as the Caring Son, but he doesn't visit his father. He's close to his sister, yet even before everything spiraled out of control, it came across as a more one-sided relationship (he gives her the game she doesn't like, he doesn't want to hear her stories, etc.). And it becomes increasingly obvious that he knew, at least in broad term, exactly who he had married, and their marriage had been one of two people trying to outdo and manipulate the other's mask... until he lost his job and stopped paying attention to her.

The plot revolves around her trying to manipulate his public face. He's the Good Guy who wants to be liked, and she counts on him clinging to that vision of himself. It's only when he does the interview, discovers a new mask to make people like him (The Goofus), and figures out how to turn the game around on her that she becomes engaged again.

And in the end, she traps him with his need to be liked. He could leave at any time, but he'd have to be willing to be hated in the process... and he stays, trapped by his mask. And I think there's a hint that he's actually excited by the new, more dangerous game.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I think the movie is going one step further. It's suggesting he's almost as big of a sociopath as she is. He's just going through life putting on masks.

As the movie unfolds, it calls a lot of his personality into question. He likes to present himself as the Caring Son, but he doesn't visit his father. He's close to his sister, yet even before everything spiraled out of control, it came across as a more one-sided relationship (he gives her the game she doesn't like, he doesn't want to hear her stories, etc.). And it becomes increasingly obvious that he knew, at least in broad term, exactly who he had married, and their marriage had been one of two people trying to outdo and manipulate the other's mask... until he lost his job and stopped paying attention to her.

The plot revolves around her trying to manipulate his public face. He's the Good Guy who wants to be liked, and she counts on him clinging to that vision of himself. It's only when he does the interview, discovers a new mask to make people like him (The Goofus), and figures out how to turn the game around on her that she becomes engaged again.

And in the end, she traps him with his need to be liked. He could leave at any time, but he'd have to be willing to be hated in the process... and he stays, trapped by his mask. And I think there's a hint that he's actually excited by the new, more dangerous game.

I think that's an interesting and valid interpretation.

 

[Netrigan]

I think the movie is going one step further. It's suggesting he's almost as big of a sociopath as she is. He's just going through life putting on masks.

As the movie unfolds, it calls a lot of his personality into question. He likes to present himself as the Caring Son, but he doesn't visit his father. He's close to his sister, yet even before everything spiraled out of control, it came across as a more one-sided relationship (he gives her the game she doesn't like, he doesn't want to hear her stories, etc.). And it becomes increasingly obvious that he knew, at least in broad term, exactly who he had married, and their marriage had been one of two people trying to outdo and manipulate the other's mask... until he lost his job and stopped paying attention to her.

The plot revolves around her trying to manipulate his public face. He's the Good Guy who wants to be liked, and she counts on him clinging to that vision of himself. It's only when he does the interview, discovers a new mask to make people like him (The Goofus), and figures out how to turn the game around on her that she becomes engaged again.

And in the end, she traps him with his need to be liked. He could leave at any time, but he'd have to be willing to be hated in the process... and he stays, trapped by his mask. And I think there's a hint that he's actually excited by the new, more dangerous game.

I think that's an interesting and valid interpretation.

Especially when the game he gives his sister (the one he likes) is Mastermind.

The Game is the thing and I think they both found their partner. They both find the other challenging.

If you look at her exes, you have Doogie who is hopelessly devoted to her (no fun if she can't push him into place), but is also unquestioningly controlling (she can't win). The other guy just refused to play The Game.

 

[Hunter Grant]

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?

No, I don't think that's what he's saying. What he is saying is that there will be some assholes out there, no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how the story plays out will engage in victim blaming and when challenged cite this movie as evidence that all women are conniving evil creatures hiding behind pretty masks. The author is saying anyone can be evil, the morons will say is prof that all women are evil.

Question.

I haven't seen the movie, so i'll give you some leeway with this, but "victim blaming?" by "victim", do you mean the author-confirmed self-centered amoral psychopath?

No, I don't mean the character in the movie. Bob's hypothesis is that in the future there will be a real world Rape/murder/domestic abuse accusation made and the MRA dudes will show up and say this is just like what happens in the Gone Girl movie. So that's how the message of this movie will get twisted.

 

[Hunter Grant]

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?

No, I don't think that's what he's saying. What he is saying is that there will be some assholes out there, no matter what evidence is presented, no matter how the story plays out will engage in victim blaming and when challenged cite this movie as evidence that all women are conniving evil creatures hiding behind pretty masks. The author is saying anyone can be evil, the morons will say is prof that all women are evil.

Well, while I don't know Bob on any real level, nor can I know what his intentions are in writing the article, I can say that to me it feels like a preemptive attack. I recently learned that Bob has some pretty heavy feminist leanings, and may even identify as a SJW. With that in mind, you can actually taste the disdain for men in the article-- it's dripping with resentment for "masculinity".

Call me paranoid, but all I see in this article is a line drawn in the sand. It's basically setting up the framework that anyone who might (rightly) draw a few parallels between the movie and real-world feminism is an ignorant woman-hater who missed the point. Exactly what you said; "assholes" who will "engage in victim blaming" and claim that "all women are conniving evil creatures". The sad reality is that in the real world, a woman doesn't have to fake her own murder to land her husband in hot water-- she only needs to call the cops and say she feels "threatened". But of course, me pointing out the fact that the movie might shed some light on the less desirable fruits of modern feminism means I couldn't possibly "get" it.

I dunno, if this is based on a personal experience or something you witnessed, but the problem in any situation is going to be evidence, and case specifics. False allegations get made, its true, but not with nearly the frequency some people would like you to believe. Those false allegations are a problem for everyone, they harm the person they are made against, if proven false they cast doubt no future accusations hurting real victims, and they bog down already overburdened systems. Problem is some people don't want to hear the specifics of a case before deciding who is in the wrong. They either always take the position that its false because of their own issues, or always side with the alleged victim without any evidence due to a perception. The positive side of the message its sounds like this movie has is that the modern media machine and court of public opinion operates so fast as to lack the above nuance. Bob has had to witness, as we all have a lot of straight up woman hating lately. Men who outright dismiss anything as a woman being all crazy like women are and its awful that the jerks perpetrating that will sit smug that this is a confirmation that ALL (and lets be clear this is the issue is that they will see the Amy character as ALL WOMEN) Women are she devils and that's going to cast an unfortunate shadow over what should be a good flick.

 

[Mr. Q]

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.

Yeah, the notion that Tyler Perry turning in a good performance is bizarre. Kinda makes me wonder if he found a role that suited his talents or did David Fincher twist Tyler's arm to get a decent performance out of him.

 

[johnnybleu]

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.

Well, I'm an artist, and I often see reviews and critiques of my work where people are all like "oh, his use of colour here" and "the dramatic mood shift there", but the reality is that they're often reading into it far more than I am. Everyone gets something different out of art, and each conclusion is as valid as the next. I'm not going to start emailing them to tell them they got it wrong. It's also entirely possible that there IS no point. And I certainly don't think that anyone has any authority on how any piece of work should be viewed, or what experience one should get out of it. Maybe I'm an idiot, but I got more of an anti-consumerism and a general "fight the machine" vibe from Fight Club, rather than a supposed "men wanting to be REAL men again and going primal". Does that mean I missed the point?

I also don't see how you can say who specifically the article was supposed to address, and who should and shouldn't not be offended. Isn't it entirely possible that any number of readers might be a bit miffed to find out they're "bad people" because their opinion of a movie differs from Bob's?

 

[johnnybleu]

(...) 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.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the people who always get offended on articles like this only feel that way due to some degree of repressed guilt. Be thankful; johnnybleu just told us all what kind of "man" he is, so now we can all avoid him properly.

Who said I was offended? And what guilt am I repressing? If you know so much about what kind of "man" I am, please enlighten me.