No Escape - Intense Racism

[RatRace123]

People seem to be focusing a lot on the "racist" aspect of the review, like that's all he said about it.
He said it was a very competently put together, very tense thriller, there's just a lot about it that's kinda gross.
And, honestly, that's the vibe I got from the trailers.

Like, just from the advertisements, they framed this (rather conspicuously) unnamed asian country in the same way that Friday The 13th would frame Camp Crystal Lake.
And the zombie comparisons are apt, because shots of the hordes of scary foreigners descending on our scared white heroes are staged almost exactly like the countless zombie horde shots we've seen time and again.

Now, I don't think any of this was intentional, but it doesn't make it any less unfortunate.
And the review didn't seem to indicate that the film was malicious or hateful, just really tone deaf. Which, again, yeah... really kinda seemed to be.

 

[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.

 

[lacktheknack]

I love how the Facebook comments are somehow even MORE hostile than usual.

Hell, even THESE comments. Wow.

You'd think that people didn't understand that some people are bothered by things that don't bother you. Hell, maybe you people don't. That would explain why Gamergate is still a thing.

(For the record, I'd be totally bothered. Having little to no explanation why the Asians are rebelling would definitely trigger every BS alarm I have, because I've actually been down there, in the slums and well out of the way of the tour zones, and a more generally white-friendly and pleasant race is not to be found.)

Jesus, the filmmakers could have made the mobs all white, and people would have complained that there was no representation of other skin colors.

In short, some peeps gotta complain about anything or they're not happy.

Including people who get upset at people who get upset, no doubt.

 

[Callate]

I haven't seen the film, so I can't really know for certain how apt the description is. But I have to make two observations.

1. If someone(s) tried to kill my wife and/or child, I doubt I would feel anything close to trauma about killing them until well after the adrenaline wore off.

2. Racism is, indeed, gross. But unless the film's protagonists are personally responsible for the suffering that leads to the coup, implying that they even slightly deserve to be brutally murdered by a mob is also pretty gross.

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

Which is quite an unfortunate and, frankly, stupid decision. If they thought portraying ISIS as bad guys was racist, they'd be wrong; ISIS really are "bad" people. This sounds far more racist than if you used an actual group who does actual horrible things to the Americans (and anyone not on their side.)

How do you make someone look ISIS? they look like just normal poor middle eastern citizens.

 

[Gorrath]

Which is quite an unfortunate and, frankly, stupid decision. If they thought portraying ISIS as bad guys was racist, they'd be wrong; ISIS really are "bad" people. This sounds far more racist than if you used an actual group who does actual horrible things to the Americans (and anyone not on their side.)

How do you make someone look ISIS? they look like just normal poor middle eastern citizens.

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.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

/

/

I love the discussion you are having. I think the biggest problem and the point you missing about the biggest problem of the movie can be summarized pretty much as....

......They just didn't care.

they could've built the motivation of the rebels but...

......They just didn't care.

they could've shown the lives of Native people suffering in those countries but...

......They just didn't care.

they could've built a realistic depiction and back story of the country but...

......They just didn't care.

What they cared about was making a dumb suspense movie for the average American bloke, with well-known actors(who a lot times are white) and shit it for mass appeal. Because doing what you guys or I mentioned above would take too much damn work for Hollywood blockbuster. I don't think they meant to be racist but they so did not give a shit that they accidentally made something uncomfortable.

so in short...

[HEADING=1]They just didn't care.[/HEADING]

 

[Gorrath]

/

/

I love the discussion you are having. I think the biggest problem and the point you missing about the biggest problem of the movie can be summarized pretty much as....

......They just didn't care.

they could've built the motivation of the rebels but...

......They just didn't care.

they could've shown the lives of Native people suffering in those countries but...

......They just didn't care.

they could've built a realistic depiction and back story of the country but...

......They just didn't care.

What they cared about was making a dumb suspense movie for the average American bloke, with well-known actors(who a lot times are white) and shit it for mass appeal. Because doing what you guys or I mentioned above would take too much damn work for Hollywood blockbuster. I don't think they meant to be racist but they so did not give a shit that they accidentally made something uncomfortable.

so in short...

[HEADING=1]They just didn't care.[/HEADING]

Well sure, that much is self-evident. What's interesting is why they didn't care. We can speculate on how this movie could have been made better, more interesting and in doing so been less tone deaf but none of that is commentary on why the movie is what it is, what decisions led up to its shitty narrative or why the people working the movie didn't care about the message the narrative was creating, intentional or not.

If we want to wade into that, I'm game! I'd suggest the main culprit being marketing, in that the execs probably felt that if you want to sell an American action movie to Americans, you need to tone down the political aspects, focus on the action/suspense and, of course, make the main characters white. None of that suggests that any racism read from the narrative is intentional or that the execs didn't care about the movie appearing racist, it merely suggests that the considerations I mentioned naturally led to the movie becoming what it became.

There are good reasons to make those decisions as well. Action/thriller movies are not often made better by spending time on superfluous exposition; it's often enough to say, "Here's the obvious good guy/family, here's the dangerous thing they are running from, boom!" A bunch of exposition on how and why this or that real or fictional American company screwed over this or that real or fictional Asian country isn't going to help the audience get onto the edge of their seat. But out with this exposition goes the framing for the antagonists that's needed to keep it from coming off as, "Attack of the mindless Asian horde!"

Even the Deus Ex Machina of the film serves exactly this purpose, of keeping things moving even if it makes no sense and is bereft of depth. It makes sense in an action/thriller to keep things moving but the execution of the Deus Ex Machina comes off as just as shallow and bone-headed from a creative standpoint as the unintentional mindless Asian horde antagonist.

So while I do think you're right, that they didn't care, the reasons they didn't care are certainly worth examining and understanding. They didn't care about exposition, possibly for good reason. They didn't care about the Deus Ex machina making sense, probably for good reason. But while they may have had good reasons for not caring about those things, the gaping holes left behind ruin the movie.

That's my rambling stream of thought on that anyway,

 

[Zetatrain]

Hmm i gotta admit judging by the trailer posted here I'm not really feeling the whole racist vibe. I'm half tempted to see it if only to see if it really is as racist as everyone one around the internet is claiming, or if its just another case of Resident Evil 5 "racism".

Also, one interesting detail, according to Wikipedia in one of the trailers they show the Khmer Rouge symbol flipped upside down, implying this could be taking place in Cambodia. Though some people claim its Thailand do to the way the written language appears.

Edit: Okay chances are it is Cambodia since the unnamed country supposedly borders Vietnam, though I guess it could be Laos as far as geography is concerned.

 

[Zetatrain]

I think anyone saying this film is "racist" is incredibly ignorant, that article was absolutely terrible, (as was the Cracked article) I saw the film and enjoyed the hell out of it and never once got a "racist" vibe from it, I think people really are grossly overreacting.

None of the critics that reviewed this said a single thing about it being "racist", this review pretty much echoes my thoughts on the film:
http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/no-escape

Honestly I think people just look way too hard for racism in every single thing.

I don't know what critics you are reading, but a quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes seems to indicate a lot of critics are slamming it for being racist and xenophobic.

 

[Objectable]

Here's an idea, film makers: Have the protagonists in your film in a foreign location BE FROM THERE.
It would make it so much more interesting rather than milktoast pieces of white bread from America.
SEE: Any movie about the Old Testament with white people.

 

[maninahat]

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.

How about I read some reviews on the movie, before I spend money going to see it? The point of a review is to help me make an informed decision, along with trailers.

 

[Inglorious891]

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.

 

[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.