Questions on the new Mad Max movie

[Vault101]

This is the Classic Action packed minimal CGI action film people have been crying for ever since 2007 AND its been critically acclaimed

if those people are gonna avoid it just because they got a whiff of the dreaded F word...well theyre the ones shooting themselves in the foot

[
Huh. So they did. I could have sworn I read something saying it was filmed in the outback.

they were going too but then it rained for the first time in 15 years

...and you know I'm not sure mad max hitting a pelican with his car would have been consistent with the overall aesthetic

 

[Fox12]

So I've seen someone on the internet predict that the new Mad Max movie was going to shove Mad Max to the sideline, to focus on a female lead and shove a feminist lecture down people's throats. I wouldn't think much of it but I've seen one reviewer say that the film acts like it was men that wrecked the world which gave me pause for thought.

So if anyone's seen the film, is any of this accurate? Does it try to lecture the audience? Does it act like women are all virtuous and men are savages? One thing I can't stand are those "girl power" movies that have to remind the audience over and over and over that 'girls are just as capable as guys' with all the subtlety of a nuclear explosion.

I don't mind female leads, I like Kill Bill and the main character doesn't exist to remind the audience that girls can kick ass, she just does.

Well, yes, Max gets pushed to the side lines. He has, like, six lines of dialogue in the whole film. Most of his communication consisted of grunting and pointing at things. I haven't seen the other films, so I don't know if that's normal, but it honestly feels like he could have been cut from the film if he wasn't so good at killing things.

But do I think it's a "girl power" movie? Honestly, I never thought of it, but no. In fact, I got the impression that feminists would hate that movie. All the women are sex slaves, prostitutes, or milking machines (gross). The men are either bred to be soldiers, or are milked for blood. It's true that the vast majority of the "good guys" were women, but the film was never preachy, and I never felt like the men were being demonized.

If you go into the film looking for some kind of feminist agenda, then I suppose you could find one. But, for the most part, it's just a big dumb action movie. Don't let politics ruin one of the best action romps of the decade. The cinematography is gorgeous, and the action is great. You owe it to yourself to see the film.

 

[Dizchu]

I thought Fury Road was amazing, one of the best films I've seen in years. I don't understand the paranoid people that think it's a vehicle for feminist infiltration or promotion. Calm the hell down.

People seem to have a lot of problems with Furiosa being the co-lead in this film despite it being called "Mad Max". Well I hate to break it to you, but "Mad Max" is a franchise. It'd be unreasonable for executives to produce and market a film of this magnitude with a property as risky as Mad Max with full confidence in audiences to realise it is set in the Mad Max universe without it being called "Mad Max".

If you have a problem with it being called "Mad Max" despite the titular Max not being the focus for the entirety of the film, you might as well shit on any Star Wars product that doesn't prominently feature a war happening amongst the stars.

Complaints about Max himself being a secondary character strike me as likely coming from people who haven't watched The Road Warrior in a while (or ever). He was ALWAYS on the sidelines, trying to avoid getting involved in the squabbles of either side, and his involvement here isn't much different than it was in the film everyone remembers as "the good one". He was a bit more prominent in Beyond Thunderdome, but... I haven't watched Beyond Thunderdome in about 15 years. There's a reason for that.

Well, I have precious little interest in this installment, but as someone who regularly re-watches Road Warrior, I can't agree with this assessment.

From the time the movie starts, we watch Max fighting and scavenging, finding his way into Papagallo's compound; when he leaves it, we leave it with him - twice. While he does share the spotlight with other characters on the oil tanker and in the compound, the focus of the story is him - his reluctant but ultimate acceptance of his own lost humanity and empathy for his fellow man.

Ehh, I both agree and disagree. Max isn't so much the central character (apart from the first film) as he is the audience's surrogate. What I mean by this is that the plot does not revolve around him, he's just the wrench in the machine that disrupts the status quo. He's the guy the audience relates to, but his story is rather minor compared to the other characters he encounters. Yeah his wife and kid died, but that's not particularly extraordinary in a world where Lord Humungus, Master Blaster and Aunty Entity exist.

But even then, I find the argument that Max is a secondary character in Fury Road to be uncompelling. The story is told through his experiences, the only scenes where he is not present are those that introduce Furiosa's character (whose actions are the basis of the plot of the film) and cutaways to the villains. We learn about Furiosa's character through Max's encounters with her. Max is as secondary a character in Fury Road as Ripley is in Aliens.

Also, Furiosa's a badass. I could watch a whole film about her, easily.

 

[UberGott]

To clarify a bit: While Max in The Road Warrior arguably isn't the character who "does" much, he is the POV character for the audience to identify with, and whom the narrative sticks with. When Max doesn't know something's up, the audience doesn't, either. He may be a largely silent, underdeveloped character, but the film still goes to great lengths to make us empathize with him. That didn't happen much in Fury Road, to the point where Max - though the literal narrator and introductory character - falls by the wayside once act two kicks in, and stays a supporting player until more or less the end.

It does feel a bit weird, don't get me wrong. I just feel like so many people complaining that he had virtually no dialogue are forgetting how damned little Mel ever had to say in the first 30 minutes of Thunderdome, or the entirety of Road Warrior. Maybe that was the point, too? Maybe Miller's bored of Max, and wants to make a series of films about Furiosa and used the marquee value to justify getting that started. Hard to blame him, if so.

The only problem with that is, well...

Spoiler

Tom Hardy is likely playing an entirely new character who shares the name and profession of Gibson's "Max". The visions of a little girl and an old man who haunt him aren't ringing any bells from Thunder Dome, and even if they were, Hardy looks younger and less physically damaged than Gibson did by the end of even the original film. I had hoped WHO Tom Hardy was playing would be a mystery solved by the end of it - maybe he's Mel's son, or maybe he's the child of one of the villagers who grew up, hearing the legends of the Road Warrior? Who knows. I feel like that was explained at one point, and wound up being cut from release. Only time will tell, I suppose...

The character development in Fury Road is by far its weakest link. But it does everything else it sets out to do so perfectly that honestly, I don't really care. The film is a white-knuckle chase movie with literally no time to spare on memories or feelings, and I respect it for what it is, even if it's a shame it didn't try just a little harder to be what it isn't.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Complaints about Max himself being a secondary character strike me as likely coming from people who haven't watched The Road Warrior in a while (or ever). He was ALWAYS on the sidelines, trying to avoid getting involved in the squabbles of either side, and his involvement here isn't much different than it was in the film everyone remembers as "the good one". He was a bit more prominent in Beyond Thunderdome, but... I haven't watched Beyond Thunderdome in about 15 years. There's a reason for that.

Well, I have precious little interest in this installment, but as someone who regularly re-watches Road Warrior, I can't agree with this assessment.

From the time the movie starts, we watch Max fighting and scavenging, finding his way into Papagallo's compound; when he leaves it, we leave it with him - twice. While he does share the spotlight with other characters on the oil tanker and in the compound, the focus of the story is him - his reluctant but ultimate acceptance of his own lost humanity and empathy for his fellow man.

Ehh, I both agree and disagree. Max isn't so much the central character (apart from the first film) as he is the audience's surrogate. What I mean by this is that the plot does not revolve around him, he's just the wrench in the machine that disrupts the status quo. He's the guy the audience relates to, but his story is rather minor compared to the other characters he encounters. Yeah his wife and kid died, but that's not particularly extraordinary in a world where Lord Humungus, Master Blaster and Aunty Entity exist.

Yeah, most of the Mad Max films so far are essentially westerns (in terms of story structure), with Mad Max acting as the archetypal "Man With No Name" character (the fact that he is called that in Beyond Thunderdome is not a coincidence). He comes in to a place that has a problem, helps people (usually by killing a lot of bad people), then rides off into the sunset.

 

[BaronVH]

Disagree that Max is a secondary character. He is the central figure driving (pun not necessarily intended) the entire narrative from beginning to end. It would have been a shitty movie if he had tons of dialog. The fact is that everything about the film, whether you liked it or not, was very fleshed out. The villains, victims, and all in between. When watching the previews, it almost sells it as another stupid action film. While 80% of it is action, and it may be even higher than that, every bit has purpose, unlike Transformers just fighting on and on, or Ultron coming to life and wanting to blow up the earth like Marvin the Martian. If they make sequels, and I hope to Valhalla they do, I see no reason to make Max any less of a loner.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Disagree that Max is a secondary character. He is the central figure driving (pun not necessarily intended) the entire narrative from beginning to end. It would have been a shitty movie if he had tons of dialog. The fact is that everything about the film, whether you liked it or not, was very fleshed out. The villains, victims, and all in between. When watching the previews, it almost sells it as another stupid action film. While 80% of it is action, and it may be even higher than that, every bit has purpose, unlike Transformers just fighting on and on, or Ultron coming to life and wanting to blow up the earth like Marvin the Martian. If they make sequels, and I hope to Valhalla they do, I see no reason to make Max any less of a loner.

I disagree slightly. I'm not sure if I'd go as far as to call him a secondary character, but I also don't think you can call him THE central figure. If he were the central figure, he would have been rescuing the brides, or would be running bartertown, or would have simply kicked the crap out of the Humongous and his Army. He's always someone who gets involved in things that only slightly have anything to do with him, beginning with "I'm just doing this for myself and I don't care about any of you", and eventually evolving into "I care about you and am willing to put my survival on the line to help, because buried somewhere in there this loner is still a good person".

In other words, as someone already mentioned, he's just about every protagonist from every western ever, right down to the only talking when necessary parts. And that's not an accident.

But damned if it doesn't work, and it works really well in this movie also.

From what I've heard, they've already greenlit at least one sequel that will focus on Furiosa, and I know Hardy is signed on for more. I'm really hoping they get him back in his traditional car: that was honestly my one criticism of the movie.

 

[Souplex]

The movie is much more pro-anarchy than pro-feminist, imo. Basically, without spoiling a whole lot, there are 3 main groups in the movie (besides the heroes) that each represent powerful institutions: religion, business, and the military. The main struggle of all the characters is to escape being captured and enslaved by these groups, the women wanting to avoid being sex slaves, the two main men wanting to avoid being either mindless soldiers or part of a machine. There is also some stuff about the environment in there as well, a little.

Also the movie is spectacular. Go see it, dammit!

It's far more communist and anarchist.

Spoiler

When they take over the citadel, they're doing it as a new power that will distribute water fairly and treating citizens more equally.
You can't be anarchist by definition if you make a power-grab.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I'll be totally honest: I'm one of those cunts that hates it when movies try to be political. Whenever they lecture or put shit in purely for the sake of "saying something" I cringe and usually dislike the movie.

For my money, Fury Road did none of that. It didn't pander, it didn't try to have an agenda, it just does its thing and does it goddamn well.

While yes, Max is something of a secondary character, I don't get how that is any different from Road Warrior. But that's just the thing. A character like Max works best when he's this baddass juggernaut taking shit out left and right. Also yeah, he's awesome in the movie. The people saying it's all hyper-feminist seem to have not actually seen the movie since Max, with some help, beats Theron in a fight and then is in control for pretty much the whole movie. It's her story, but its his plan they go with in the end and its him that does most of the combat work.

The thing about Fury Road is, its simply astoundingly well done. No scene is ever in service of anything other than the plot, the action, the characters and the world. There's no fan service. There's no empowerment for its own sake. It's just strong characters surviving. One is Max, the other is Charlize Theron.

So in answer to your question,

So if anyone's seen the film, is any of this accurate? Does it try to lecture the audience? Does it act like women are all virtuous and men are savages? One thing I can't stand are those "girl power" movies that have to remind the audience over and over and over that 'girls are just as capable as guys' with all the subtlety of a nuclear explosion.

No. It really doesn't. They're all just people. They beat the shit out of each other, the work together, they all have their moments. Go see it.

 

[Parasondox]

*sigh* Can't we just enjoy a movie that is insane, crazy, over the top and just damn fucking WOW, without trying to add a message that was not the intention of the director please?

Some people just need to stop over thinking things and just enjoy something. HAVE FUN!!

 

[Vault101]

I'll be totally honest: I'm one of those cunts that hates it when movies try to be political. Whenever they lecture or put shit in purely for the sake of "saying something" I cringe and usually dislike the movie.

For my money, Fury Road did none of that. It didn't pander, it didn't try to have an agenda, it just does its thing and does it goddamn well.

all works are inherently "political" to varying degrees in that they [I/]often[/I] reflect a certain point of view

but there's a difference between being political and doing it poorly

actually a good example would be the environmental themes in happy feet (same director as MM:FR hilariously enough) compared to Wall-e

Happy Feet seems like a movie suffering from many abandoned plot threads and re writes. I mean you have this perfectly serviceable plot with an outcast penguin who can DANCE instead of sing cool but then after faffing around it gets weird and THE FISH ARE DYING and LETS DANCE SO THE HUMANS DON'T KILL US....wut? the power of dance causes the humans to completely re-do their fishing practices? it just felt forced

Wall-e has some pretty obvious environmental themes but its [b/]cohesive[/b] the degradation of the environment leads to the current setting, the state of the humans is funny (if not a little true) the environmental stuff provides the driving force/backbone of the plot but it doesn't overtake it

Some people just need to stop over thinking things and just enjoy something. HAVE FUN!!

I'm sorry but this really pisses me off

there's no such thing as over thinking something, this shit is real,its a relfection of our society, its in our lives and its subject to criticism/analysis

as for what the director intended...I got the impression from an interview that whatever themes present in the movie to him were just no brainers....subjecgation/warlords/power plays all universal and old themes and he said that maybe it was simply timing that this became a discussion in regards to woman in media. So no he probably didn't go in thinking "I'm going to make a feminist movie"

BUT

decisions were made along the line, decisions that resulted in what we got, and what we got was a film that is quite feminist [I/]intentionally or not[/I]

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, yes, Max gets pushed to the side lines. He has, like, six lines of dialogue in the whole film. Most of his communication consisted of grunting and pointing at things. I haven't seen the other films, so I don't know if that's normal, but it honestly feels like he could have been cut from the film if he wasn't so good at killing things.

Max is supposed to be more of a myth than a real fleshed out character -- A story the people of the wastes tell eachother around the campfire about the time when the odds were set against them, and this strange man came out of nowhere to help them and who then suddenly vanished again.

When you look at the apocalypse in this Mad Max it feels way more far gone and "evolved" than the ones in the previous movies, yet Max is still a young guy despite having been around before the world ended. In Mad Max 2 we hear that it's been so long nobody can even remember what happened. And Furiosa even mentioned she grew up in the apocalypse.

Max is kind of like Link, I guess you could say. Just this guy who shows up to (reluctantly) give a helping hand.

 

[Kontarek]

The movie is fan-fucking-tastic on every level, a true masterpiece. This should be your one and only concern. It is feminist without compromising its quality in any way whatsoever; why the fuck is this a problem?

 

[RedDeadFred]

Huh, and here I was thinking that feminists were going to be the ones having the problem with it since a large amount of the female cast are sex slaves. But no, because a woman is a badass in the movie and the villains are male, that means it's feminist propaganda. Some people....

Anyway, I thought it was the best action movie I've seen in a long time. There were so many standout scenes and characters. My personal favourites were anything involving the awesome guitarist. Also, for a movie taking place in the post apocalypse, it's downright gorgeous. I'm sure Michael Bay is jealous of how much better the explosions were in this movie than of his.

 

[Zhukov]

[
Huh. So they did. I could have sworn I read something saying it was filmed in the outback.

they were going too but then it rained for the first time in 15 years

...and you know I'm not sure mad max hitting a pelican with his car would have been consistent with the overall aesthetic

As an aside, are you aware that if you edit a

into your post, it doesn't notify the quotee?

 

[Parasondox]

Some people just need to stop over thinking things and just enjoy something. HAVE FUN!!

I'm sorry but this really pisses me off

there's no such thing as over thinking something, this shit is real,its a relfection of our society, its in our lives and its subject to criticism/analysis

as for what the director intended...I got the impression from an interview that whatever themes present in the movie to him were just no brainers....subjecgation/warlords/power plays all universal and old themes and he said that maybe it was simply timing that this became a discussion in regards to woman in media. So no he probably didn't go in thinking "I'm going to make a feminist movie"

BUT

decisions were made along the line, decisions that resulted in what we got, and what we got was a film that is quite feminist [I/]intentionally or not[/I]

So, having fun and not over thinking is not fun? Please tell me you are kidding when you say there is no such thing as over thinking?

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Edit: apologies, erttheking, if it felt like my post was "directed" at you. Not my intention. The quoted bit was a jumping off point. I happen to agree with what you're saying, but I think it's advice that *everyone* should consider.

Plus the movie just has a 98% on rotten tomatoes. Can't we just watch a kickass movie without screening it to make sure it's a feminist free zone?

Replace "feminist free zone" with "perfectly politically correct" and this is precisely what a lot of people have been saying to feminists since fucking forever.

Short story much, much longer: I'm tickled by the monumental double standard being applied to MRA criticism of this film. Feminist critiques have always centered around media as representation rather than depiction. This generally manifests as a sort of "scorecard" whereupon every character's identity, traits, behavior, relationships, and treatment are carefully recorded, examined, and graded. MRAs have performed a similarly reductive exercise with respect to MM:FF, and anyone who has seen the movie should know the outcome.

- literally every antagonist in the film is male
- excluding background extras, only two male characters are not wholly evil
- and neither are they wholly good; one starts evil (and is redeemed by a woman) and the other starts out an uncaring, disturbed bastard
- literally no woman in the film is evil (unless you count Furiosa's past, which we never see)
- literally every woman in the film, I believe, is eventually empowered in at least some capacity
- the only woman to demonstrate weakness (the breeder who tries to "go back") eventually uses that weakness as a ruse to empower herself
- warboy sacrifices himself for the women, and Max quietly slips away after helping secure the Citadel, both examples of male disposability

Point being: if you're holding a scorecard and pretending to equality, this movie is beyond "problematic" by the standards of most feminist-style criticism. Personally, I think such reductive exercises are both tragically misguided and potentially quite harmful - regardless of whose ox is being gored. Subsequently, I loved the film. But I'm still bothered by two points:

1) That the MRA crowd is catching flak for doing *exactly* what feminists have done to countless previous films, games, novels, etc.

2) That feminists champion a film drowning in benevolent sexism and still wonder why some people accuse them of promoting female superiority rather than true equality.

 

[happyninja42]

So I've seen someone on the internet predict that the new Mad Max movie was going to shove Mad Max to the sideline, to focus on a female lead and shove a feminist lecture down people's throats. I wouldn't think much of it but I've seen one reviewer say that the film acts like it was men that wrecked the world which gave me pause for thought.

I didn't get the vibe that the characters in question were blaming men in general, but basically blaming people who acted like the main villain specifically. There is one conversation between one of the protagonists, and the servant of the villain who was given all the screen time. If you simply look at it from the viewpoint of "It was a female, accusing a male", then yeah I can see the sexist tone to it. But the context of their discussion was larger than that. She never said "It was men who destroyed the world!" (as best as I can recall, dialogue was difficult to hear sometimes due to accent+background noises). She directed her anger at Immortan Joe, and his followers as "Who killed the world?" To me it simply seemed she was blaming the behavior of the old world's leaders for why the world was dead, not simply because "You have a penis! Thus it's your fault!"

Now, there was one scene that did annoy me with it's implied sexism.

Spoiler

Later, when they reach "the Green Place", and encounter the stragglers of that society, when they are all exiting the truck, the old women freak out when they see "the men!", and not the women. Implying that women are no reason to fear, and are not a threat at all, but men automatically are. Which I found stupid considering that all of those women were veteran survivors of the apocalypse, and quite skilled at killing, as was Furiosa. But hey, they have vaginas right? So I guess they're just never going to do something bad or evil, that's purely a Penis-specific behavior"

That bit I found personally annoying

So if anyone's seen the film, is any of this accurate? Does it try to lecture the audience? Does it act like women are all virtuous and men are savages? One thing I can't stand are those "girl power" movies that have to remind the audience over and over and over that 'girls are just as capable as guys' with all the subtlety of a nuclear explosion.

I don't mind female leads, I like Kill Bill and the main character doesn't exist to remind the audience that girls can kick ass, she just does.

No, I don't think it tried to lecture the audience at all. I think at times, it fell back on a couple of sexist movie tropes that I personally found annoying. But for the most part, I think the director was too busy having a good time showing us a fucking insane post-apocalyptic world to bother with lecturing the audience. I mean...Guitar Man. GUITAR MAN!! So much awesomeness radiated from that guy that my brain is still melting from it. I felt like I was watching a live action version of Brutal Legend at times. xD

So no, it wasn't some lecturing story. It was a fucked up, fun thrill ride in a wasteland setting, with a cast of nutjob characters. I loved the hell out of it.

 

[Dizchu]

- literally every antagonist in the film is male
1. excluding background extras, only two male characters are not wholly evil
2. and neither are they wholly good; one starts evil (and is redeemed by a woman) and the other starts out an uncaring, disturbed bastard
3. literally no woman in the film is evil (unless you count Furiosa's past, which we never see)
4. literally every woman in the film, I believe, is eventually empowered in at least some capacity
5. the only woman to demonstrate weakness (the breeder who tries to "go back") eventually uses that weakness as a ruse to empower herself
6. warboy sacrifices himself for the women, and Max quietly slips away after helping secure the Citadel, both examples of male disposability

I numbered your points for convenience's sake so I can address them one by one, if you don't mind.

1. Nobody in the wasteland is "wholly good" or "wholly evil". In fact, the War Boys seem to be as much victims as any of the women in this film. They've been raised and trained to be disposable under the extreme patriarchal rule of Immortan Joe. Could this be a reflection of the real world, on the film's part? Sure, depending on how you look at it.

2. I wouldn't say Nux is "evil", and Max has been an uncaring, disturbed bastard since the last act of the first film.

3. Apart from Joe and maybe the leaders of the other two towns, the same can't be said for the men either (see point 1).

4. Why is this a problem? Though...

Spoiler: SPOILERS

I wouldn't say that Angharad getting run over by a truck, killing her and her child is very empowering. She exits the film in a fairly horrendous way.

5. All of the female characters demonstrate weakness, though Furiosa demonstrates it far less. They're not perfect, they've had to sacrifice aspects of their humanity in order to survive. Even then, it wasn't just one of the wives that was pessimistic about the plan.

6.

Spoiler: SPOILERS

If I recall correctly, Nux was already doomed. He was in extremely poor health and had two tumours growing on his body. He turned from merely disposable under the rule of Joe to immensely valuable in the later acts of the film. And Max slipping away at the end is an example of "male disposability"??? This happens in every film. He's a voluntary vagabond, he chooses not to get too involved in anyone else's lives because he can't trust anyone. If he stuck around and settled in the Citadel, it'd completely undermine his entire character

The film pushes feminism as much as it pushes socialism, really.

 

[Dizchu]

Can someone explain me - what's so awesome about Furiosa again? She's as boring as action protagonists can get.

At the beginning of the film she sacrifices what I assume to be a life of relative comfort (she has the respect of the War Boys, has agency and isn't subject to the treatment of the wives or the peasants in the society) for the slim chance of securing a better future for herself and those women.

She's spent what I am assuming to be a large chunk of her life answering to a guy she absolutely despises, on the off-chance that she's able to use the trust she's earned to make things better, and not just for herself either. The world of Mad Max is based around selfishness, people struggle to survive and are more than willing to dick each other over for a bit of water or oil, a mentality even Max has succumbed to.

Few if any other characters in the film have Furiosa's determination to revert the world even slightly to the way things were. Not even Max, who just wants to get by (like pretty much every other character apart from the small communities in Mad Max 2 and 3). Max is a reluctant hero, Furiosa is a determined one. She's the one that decides that her dignity and those of the wives are of more value than mere survival.

None of this is explicitly said in the film, but to be honest not a lot in any of the films has been explicitly stated. Apart from some stuff in Mad Max 3 which inevitably made it a weaker film. The films, for the most part, hint at a much larger world by showing and not telling. While many people have said that the character development in the series is weak, I don't think that's the case. I think that the character development must be inferred from the hints the films give. We didn't need Max shouting "noooooooooo" and burying his dog in Mad Max 2 to tell that the dog was a treasured companion.