No Escape - Intense Racism

[Gorrath]

snip

It was, thank you. I know that the 'r' word is a provocative one, and will always provoke a two-sided reaction. I suppose it depends on where you draw the line (if at all) between 'racist' and 'racially insensitive'.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that this is a bad movie that didn't try hard enough at anything it set out to achieve, beyond perhaps the cinematography.

Oh no doubt about that. From reading the review, I'd quite agree this movie is total shite. Good tense action sequences do not a good movie make. It's all the worse really that such good sequences are wasted on such an appallingly tone deaf movie that's not trying hard enough at not being racist. I'm sure it's probably not intentional but I even got that vibe from the trailers. Watching them made me roll my eyes at first and then make a face that probably resembled the look one might get after being presented with a bowl full of dog droppings and rotten eggs.

Yes good action scenes DO make a good movie, and no it is not "tone deaf" or "racist" in the least. I'd recommend you actually SEE the damn film BEFORE passing judgement on it, trailers can often be very misleading, and I can tell you the trailers don't really tell you the whole story.

Firstly, I've said multiple times throughout my posts that I am basing my opinion off the trailers and the reviews I have read (from reviewers I trust.) Maybe the movie is a fantastic romp of action and tension with deep characters, witty dialogue and Oscar performances that hasn't even a modicum of questionable portrayals. Maybe every review I've read has totally missed the mark and every criticism about the tone is way off base. Maybe Antarctica doesn't actually exist; I've never been there, so how would I know, I've only the word of others to go off of! In any case, I've no intention of seeing this movie in the theater. It looks dumb, sounds dumb and has a 40% on RT, so I'll check it out when it hits Netflix in a couple of months. If I end up thinking it's a good film then, I'll eat my hat! More importantly, I'll PM you with a "happy I was wrong," message.

Secondly, I absolutely contest that good action scenes make a good movie. There are great movies without an action sequence anywhere in them or have minimal action (Ex Machina leaps to mind) and movies with really good action sequences that have stupid plots, shitty characters and inane dialogue (much of the Fast and Furious franchise, Expendables 3). If you wish to argue that good action sequences = a good film, I'll be happy to listen and respond, but I'll need more than you just claiming it is so.

With that on the table, why do you say that good action sequences make a good movie? Certainly they can play a part in making a film good (as with Old Boy, Dredd, Terminator 2, Aliens ect.) but couple good or even great action scenes with shitty CGI, terrible acting, awful writing and idiotic dialogue and I'm not seeing a good movie come of this. You might end up with a cult classic type status where we love the film in spite of or even because of their faults but loving a bad movie doesn't mean it's really a good movie. So I'm interested, please elaborate.

 

[PhiMed]

Not all societies are ethnically heterogeneous.

Extraordinarily bad shit really does sometimes happen to white Americans in countries where that is the case. Check out the news some time. Any source. It really doesn't matter. Doesn't have to be Fox News. Really. Any of them.

Stating that, or portraying it in film, is not inherently racist.

It seems that people under the age of 25 seem to be able to be grouped into two categories:
1) borderline white supremacists, and
2) young people who think that a white good guy anywhere other than a Nordic nation automatically = "bad", and any non-white bad guy who is not offset by an appropriately non-white good guy automatically = "inexcusable".

This does not make them "evolved". It makes them brainwashed, and a little bit ignorant of reality.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Ok guys, question time:

Why didn't Black Hawk Down get flamed like this movie is getting? Is it purely because it came out when political correctness was just starting to appear, or did it portray the blight of the horde of foreigners better than No Escape did?

From what I remember of Black Hawk Down, it did have some moments of humanization, but that made up 2% of them movie at the most; 80% was just American soldiers mowing down hordes of Somalis, which was the point of the movie, but that obviously doesn't justify anything.

Black Hawk down came out three months after 9/11. you could make a film about all Islam people being baby rapists and very few people would call you out on it. in fact if you did you could be called a terrorist supporter. today opinions a little bit more divided on these things

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

The same way you make someone look Nazi? Or Hydra, if you're doing a stand-in. Iconography, quite simply and you need not merely rely on looks; dialogue can convey group membership as well.

ISIS don't have uniforms, they look like poor Arab's fighting against well since it's the middle east corrupt totalitarian governments.

While what ISIS do is on the news don't forget that all the Middle East governments do the exact same things, they just torture and kill behind closed doors.

 

[Gorrath]

Not all societies are ethnically heterogeneous.

Extraordinarily bad shit really does sometimes happen to white Americans in countries where that is the case. Check out the news some time. Any source. It really doesn't matter. Doesn't have to be Fox News. Really. Any of them.

Stating that, or portraying it in film, is not inherently racist.

It seems that people under the age of 25 seem to be able to be grouped into two categories:
1) borderline white supremacists, and
2) young people who think that a white good guy anywhere other than a Nordic nation automatically = "bad", and any non-white bad guy who is not offset by an appropriately non-white good guy automatically = "inexcusable".

This does not make them "evolved". It makes them brainwashed, and a little bit ignorant of reality.

Surely simply portraying a white family in danger in a foreign land isn't inherently racist. There are good reasons why a movie like that might be made and might be good, too. From what I've read/seen about this particular movie though, that's not the issue. The issue is not that it's a white family in peril but the origin of that peril. Having Tony Stark be kidnapped by terrorists in a foreign land isn't racist but Iron Man 1 took the time to contextualize who kidnapped him and why. If what I've read about this movie is true, the contextualization of the antagonists is what's leaving a bad taste in people's mouths with regard to race. White family in danger isn't a problem; white family in danger being chased by poorly contextualized foreigners who are made out to be mindless brutes and it starts to raise some people's hackles.

I don't know why you think that people under 25 are all grouped into those two camps. Nuance isn't lost upon a whole generation I think.

 

[Gorrath]

The same way you make someone look Nazi? Or Hydra, if you're doing a stand-in. Iconography, quite simply and you need not merely rely on looks; dialogue can convey group membership as well.

ISIS don't have uniforms, they look like poor Arab's fighting against well since it's the middle east corrupt totalitarian governments.

While what ISIS do is on the news don't forget that all the Middle East governments do the exact same things, they just torture and kill behind closed doors.

You don't need uniforms to have iconography. The Marvel movies have done a great job oh showing Hydra iconography without uniforms and ISIS does use iconography. Once more, you can also differentiate a group through dialogue as well, so even if you skip the iconography you can still effectively denote a group that way, ala the Ten Rings organization from Iron Man 1 who also lacked uniforms and didn't make a great deal of use of iconography. Lastly, I've no idea what the crimes of governments in the Middle East has to do with this. I don't want to read anything into your statement there and it seems like a massive red herring anyway. Would you care to clarify why it's pertinent? It seems like you're suggesting that ISIS shouldn't be portrayed as bad guys because they are freedom fighters against governments that are just as "evil" as they are but again, I'm not quite following you and don't want to assume things that you don't mean.

 

[Gorrath]

Deleted for captcha tom foolery.

 

[Gorrath]

Ok guys, question time:

Why didn't Black Hawk Down get flamed like this movie is getting? Is it purely because it came out when political correctness was just starting to appear, or did it portray the blight of the horde of foreigners better than No Escape did?

From what I remember of Black Hawk Down, it did have some moments of humanization, but that made up 2% of them movie at the most; 80% was just American soldiers mowing down hordes of Somalis, which was the point of the movie, but that obviously doesn't justify anything.

A couple of reasons I can think of.

1) It was based on a true story. While some of the events were fictionalized in their details, the general events actually happened. It's no more a racist portrayal of the Somali people than a movie about Nazis fighting Allied troops is a racist portrayal of Germans.

2) Black Hawk Down showed both the Somali people who fought against the American troops and those who supported them so as to not make the mistake of portraying Americans = good, Somalis = bad. From the various reviews I've read, this movie failed to make such a clear and appropriate distinction.

3) The failure of America's own policy in Somalia was a central part of Black Hawk Down as opposed to a barely mentioned footnote, further reinforcing that the situation was more complex than America = good guys, Somalis = bad guys. Again, from what I've read, this film failed to do a good job of that.

If Black Hawk Down had just been about American forces putting a good smack down on uppity black people, it too would look pretty racist.

 

[Zetatrain]

Ok guys, question time:

Why didn't Black Hawk Down get flamed like this movie is getting? Is it purely because it came out when political correctness was just starting to appear, or did it portray the blight of the horde of foreigners better than No Escape did?

From what I remember of Black Hawk Down, it did have some moments of humanization, but that made up 2% of them movie at the most; 80% was just American soldiers mowing down hordes of Somalis, which was the point of the movie, but that obviously doesn't justify anything.

Well regardless of political correctness there are two things to take note of.

The movie came out in December 2001.

Internet usage was not nearly as wide spread as it is today so if there were a lot of people who found BHD racist it would be hard to get the word out unless they were a physical organization with media coverage.

Also BHD came out just 4 months after the 9/11 attacks in the US. Chances are the pro-military attitude at the time would have eclipsed any allegations of racism.

 

[Reasonable Atheist]

Hey look, another thing your not allowed to make into entertainment, a story of escaping a revolution in a foreign country.

So, if the protagonists were black, or asian, would this be fine?

Give me a break.

Also, this shit actually happened! like you know, non-fiction style.

 

[gandhi the peacemake]

Hey look, another thing your not allowed to make into entertainment, a story of escaping a revolution in a foreign country.

So, if the protagonists were black, or asian, would this be fine?

Give me a break.

Also, this shit actually happened! like you know, non-fiction style.

Having not read the review, I can't speak for it, but here's MY rub with the movie:

Asia is the size of North America AND South America COMBINED. (By the by, Africa has this rather famous map:

)

Let's say we set a movie similar to this shambles in America.

America, where everything is thick rainforest and winding rivers. Mosquitoes and giant ants and neon-colored frogs run amok, and the tour guide hacks a broad leaf out of the way with a machete and announces in Gujarati, "Welcome to America!"

You'd be understandably confused. "That's not America," you'd say.

"What are you talking about?" would be the reply. "This is totally an American country."

"Well, right, but see, the American country I'm from isn't like this at all. Where I'm from, we have skyscrapers and we speak English and--"

"Hey look, another thing you're not allowed to make into entertainment!" they would say mockingly. "Can't we just tell a story of escaping a revolution in a foreign country?"

Your response would probably be something like, "Well yes, but you should be more specific about where this is. America is a big place."

Well, so is Asia, and while it's all well and fine to tell a story of escape from a revolution in a foreign country, it would be nice to know what that country actually is besides "Asian." Because, again, Asia is the size of North America AND South America COMBINED. A lot of countries, unique in every way, are Asian. Unless the implication is that all Asian countries look like and experience revolutions the way this movie shows it. I mean, clearly India had a revolution like this. Except for, you know, that one time it didn't. Because Gandhi.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Moviebob may have departed, but his spirit lives on.

"...Asian citizens of a country it can't be bothered to name..."
and why do you think they didn't name the country? Because if they had, they'd be giving you more ammunition to complain about how it depicts all people in Thailand or Laos or wherever as terrible. They used a fictional (or at the very least, unnamed) country to try and NOT offend people. I also find this sort of hysterical: if we made a movie set in Alabama and it depicted all the white characters are stupid and racist, I doubt anyone would complain about its depiction of folks in Alabama.

"Why doesn't it focus on the citizens of the country?"
This is like complaining that "The Raid" should have focused entirely on the innocent people in the apartment building and not on the Cops. Likewise, you could basically make this argument for just about any movie ever made that involves people in life or death situations. 'Die Hard' shouldn't have focused on John McClain, it should have focused on those poor people being held hostage! "Tears of the Sun" should have focused on the innocent people being killed, not on the Navy SEALs who can actually fight back! "Dredd" shouldn't have focused on the Judges, it should have focused on the people being held hostage in that building by the criminals!

"that they're revolting because of the way that American companies have managed to more or less own several of their important businesses through underhanded tactics. This isn't a focus, though..."
I haven't seen the movie, but if it just follows Owen Wilson and family, then it makes sense that they don't go into huge amounts of detail regarding geopolitical and economic issues affecting the entire country, since a guy and his wife and kids are probably not going to know this stuff nor even be involved in it. That, to me, is sort of the point: this is just a family caught up in a situation way bigger than them that they don't understand, and they're trying to survive. This isn't "Schoolhouse Rocks", it doesn't have to be educational.

"That is, until it comes to murdering Asians, which they do with glee and without any psychological trauma - despite the fact that they're "normal people.""
Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that our protagonists are killing these people in self-defense or to survive?

 

[hentropy]

I think the problem with the movie isn't any one specific thing you can pin it for, but rather a perfect storm of tropes and themes.

Set it in a nameless country? Check.
That nameless country is an amalgamation of many major Asian countries because people don't know anything about Cambodia? Check.
Don't even pretend that it's based on a true story? Check.
Americans shouldn't leave their suburbs or they'll die? Check.
Make all evil foreigners faceless with no characterization? Check.
Focus entirely on the suffering of the whites? Check.

Taken was still sorta crappy because of "Americans shouldn't leave their suburbs" trope, it doesn't matter that everyone in it was white. Argo was able to make their mobs mostly faceless because it was a real situation that took the time to fully inform the audience about what the conflict was about (although it did take some liberties with the truth that weren't really needed). In this case had just one of the tropes been employed it wouldn't have been much of a problem, but the fact that anyone (producer or whoever) looked at that script and thought there were no problems with it shows that 1) either they are fully out of touch or 2) are intentionally employing racist tropes for selfish purposes.

 

[hentropy]

and why do you think they didn't name the country? Because if they had, they'd be giving you more ammunition to complain about how it depicts all people in Thailand or Laos or wherever as terrible.

That's sorta the problem, though. By setting it in a completely fictional country "in Asia" they think they are absolving themselves of racism and having to treat humans with basic human respect, when in reality they're taking it from "Cambodians are monsters" to "all Asian countries are powder kegs, so don't go there or it will happen to you!" If you do set it in Cambodia, you have to go into pesky things like Cambodian culture and history and modern state, and clearly no one was interested in doing that.

Personally I'm just kinda tired of the idea of painting foreigners as being universally bad or less trustworthy than Americans. This can be seen in lesser forms, like "many action movie villains being Europeans for no reason" to "letting your daughters go to France is dooming them to being kidnapped into sex trafficking", despite the fact that it is wildly unrealistic. Neither of these examples have anything to do with race. Hollywood seems relatively unwilling to paint a white American as being a villain, and when they are they are cartoonish sociopaths and/or given a lot of sympathy and moral grayness.

 

[RebornKusabi]

I haven't seen the movie and thereby can't make an honest assessment of it- sorry reviews don't equal an accurate opinion of the subject matter and content of the movie. But my little issue with the movie is that... where does this movie take place again and why Asians? Unless this movie takes place in Burma/Myanmar (which is pointless when there is a China or a Japan), North Korea (which is impossible) or Vietnam (between 1954 to 1975), we haven't had a huge political uprising in an Asian country in quite awhile so while I can't say events like the movie couldn't happen (it has in the past), it was an odd choice. Especially when someone mentioned on the original page that the movie was supposedly gonna uses ISIS instead which if done properly would have side-stepped the whole "white=good, Asians=evil" thing this movie ended up using.

I don't know- I might check this out when it comes to on-demand but for now I am largely ambivalent to movies like this... well, movies in general unless they're horror movies or comic book movies. I mostly play vidja gaemz and read comics when not working.

 

[Paradoxrifts]

Hi! I'm an American, and I've been in an Asian country during a revolution. They tried to burn down the apartment building I was living in with my wife and child, and they tried breaking in. They did successfully make several very threatening phone calls intimating their desire to kill us and take our stuff.

Thanks to Soviet architecture, burning down the building only succeeded in knocking out the electricity and scorching the first floor stores (which we watched them loot). Also, every floor had a locked door and then a locked gate to get through, and they apparently couldn't figure those out (although they tried).

In short, mob mentalities during revolutions tend around rampant violence, blind tribal hatred, and alcohol. The author of this article probably doesn't know jack squat about how terrifying situations like this can be. Probably the closest he's been is watching it on CNN.

Never underestimate the power of the barely educated ignorant masses to destroy your faith in humanity when things go wrong. I'm glad your survived your brush with humanity's darker side.