alaskacameradude
Veteran
Yikes. And this is the sort of claptrap I have become accustomed to hearing.
'If you don't like this movie it's because you don't appreciate TRUE art.'
Yeah whatever. Carry on.
Leave the World Behind
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
Yikes. And this is the sort of claptrap I have become accustomed to hearing.
'If you don't like this movie it's because you don't appreciate TRUE art.'
Yeah whatever. Carry on.
Abe, you are too kind and patient.
I would love it if the purpose of asking about Dancing with the stars and Naked and something were explained (if it matters to anyone, I've watched neither because they did not appeal to me).
If it helps, regarding the boss (I am not too familiar with his music) my understanding is that his work appeals to left leaning working class/blue collar people. I'd say that this film feels like something made to appeal/hold a mirror to left leaning urban/coastal middle class people.
The left leaning overlap is probably why there's been some mix up leading to the guess that you may like his music.
In any case, I think you need someone very smart (not me, I've already pointed out my reactions to soap operas and love island) to enjoy things for which they are not the target audience because it's really hard to understand them.
This is going off topic, but since there's been some discussion of healthcare I'll drop this here. Both Spain and Italy have universal healthcare.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_expectancy_vs_healthcare_spending.jpg
I would love it if the purpose of asking about Dancing with the stars and Naked and something were explained (if it matters to anyone, I've watched neither because they did not appeal to me).
If it helps, regarding the boss (I am not too familiar with his music) my understanding is that his work appeals to left leaning working class/blue collar people. I'd say that this film feels like something made to appeal/hold a mirror to left leaning urban/coastal middle class people.
The left leaning overlap is probably why there's been some mix up leading to the guess that you may like his music.
In any case, I think you need someone very smart (not me, I've already pointed out my reactions to soap operas and love island) to enjoy things for which they are not the target audience because it's really hard to understand them.
This is going off topic, but since there's been some discussion of healthcare I'll drop this here. Both Spain and Italy have universal healthcare.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_expectancy_vs_healthcare_spending.jpg
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'm only insulting him because he insulted me. But it's true that the director's explanation made it clear that his film was intended to be surreal. Calling it a stupid movie because something doesn't make literal sense is like criticizing football for being too violent. You may dislike the genre even if it succeeds on its own terms.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't always do the right thing. Even when I know what that is. But I think it's important to try to determine right from wrong. And I think it's important to try to do the right thing for its own sake and for the sake of other people. Rather than for some punishment or reward.
Oh dear, Abe, all within a couple of posts.
It's pretty entertaining watching a left brain and right brain have a battle of wits. No, I don't take sides. I find you both entertaining to watch how brains work. Principles, whose source, none of us understand, drive us to see things a certain way and nothing, ..... not the facts, not logic, not overwhelming evidence, will change our minds. Why is that?
So some scientists tried to find out if there was any differences between a left and right leaning brain. They found something. The amygdala is larger in a right oriented person that a left oriented person. The amygdala is a so-called fear center. I thought about that for a while and it made a lot of sense to me.
In general terms ( I said general, so don't get your panties in a bunch), conservatives don't like change. New things bug them. I watched conservatives moan and groan for 40 years everytime the left was active about certain kinds of detergent ruining our fresh water supply and every other cause in the world. In general, the left was right (ha, get it. left was right). Over and over we see the right ignore what may seem obvious to others and resist change. Like seat belts in the '60s. No God-fearing American was going to be told to wear a seat belt. Like climate change. The right ignored the facts for a very long time. Only it all coming bearing down on us with dramatic changes in weather are conservatives coming around.
So I conclude that a larger fear center likes things to be the same. Change is unknown; to be feared. But that does not make conservatives cowards. Quite the opposite. They are the ones willing to defend the country when an enemy attacks. Interesting paradox.
The left loves change. They crave it. They want change for the sake of change. A constant theme I have heard from liberals when discussing a topic of local or national concern is 'but we have to try something'. Meaning, with out analysis, without thinking about outcome, anything is better than nothing. I've seen this theme over and over. Trying stupid stuff without any analysis or study to understand what the consequences are. I once asked a liberal protester a few questions about the Occupy movement (remember that? ). She had no answers. She had to ask a friend why they were protesting. She wanted to protest for the sake of protest.
I've tried ever so hard to be in the middle. It's not possible. One's brain is wired a certain way and that drives us to a principle that defies logic (from the other sides's perspective).
Too little change = stagnation
Too much change = chaos
The middle of the road is the proper balance
So then, what can we conclude about the movie? We must go to the authority, Rotten Tomatoes. Now, what is interesting about Rotten Tomatoes is we see 76% approval from the critics and 34% audience score. What do we know about critics? Well, from a poll of journalists, we know that journalists are over 92% Democrats. So journalism is far, far left. Can we assume that movie critics are largely left? Would that account for their higher approval rate of the movie? Probably. If you look at the way movies are rated by critics, I think we can see the left bias.
What do we know about the general audience that contributes to Rotten Tomatoes? Nothing as far as I know. Is there any reason to believe the left or right would contribute more opinions to Rotten Tomatoes? I don't know.
We're going to have to stop this thread. I can only eat so much popcorn.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I find it usually works out well to keep having the conversation you want to have rather than the conversation that's being had.
I'd also say that, regardless of who the film was intended for, it engendered strong reactions from most of the viewers and that's more than you can say about most films.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
The first thing i said there was that i don't always do the right thing even when I know what that is.
But i stand by the assertion that this was an intelligent film and that Doug missed some of the points and themes which I thought were obvious or self-explanatory. And furthermore that he was unwilling to engage with it on its own terms. That doesn't make it a bad movie, just not a movie for him.
I don't have a precise read on Doug's politics but my impression was that, as a long-time Yankee, he is probably not as conservative as southern conservatives.
It's hard to discuss politics in one dimension anyway. It's much easier to tease out opinions on a case by case basis. And I don't agree with the entire platform of the Democratic party. Sometimes I'm to their left and sometimes I'm to their right. I increasingly hate the institution itself.
I feel like most of the border solutions proposed by the right are a kind of "we have to try something" without much analysis and certainly without considering or addressing root causes.
I think a more basic divide between left and right centers around preferences for carrots or sticks, as well as emphasis on punishing aggressors vs helping victims.
Being uniformly left does not mean being far left. I think that critics tend to be more theoretical and heady in their film analysis than the audience. Oftentimes I find their criticism is politically motivated. That may be the case here. I usually find the audience score a better predictor of my enjoyment, but not in this case.
And as with politics, it's informative to bore into the details of people's reactions. A lot of the negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are explicitly political or superficial. (Kind of like Doug saying he didn't like that the husband was a "pussy" and that Roberts' dancing was bad. I thought those were strong storytelling elements.)
If any Moderators were still present - it probably should have been stopped already. I thought politics were forbidden. I certainly don't come visit this site to wade thru what this thread has become.
Yea, but it's a civil discussion. Quite nice actually. Some little barbs, but everyone is getting along quite well.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
God forbid we discuss anything controversial. Without the moderators how will we know what's within the bounds of acceptable thought?
In all seriousness though, you don't have to read this thread if you don’t want to. And I don't think it has descended into chaos. I've seen much worse on this site. And 90%+ of the discussion is germane to the movie
alaskacameradude
Veteran
That may have been your intent but it kinda also seemed, at least a little,
like an insult to anyone (like say me) who thought the movie was a steaming pile.
And I usually like post apocalyptic movies!
Last edited:
alaskacameradude
Veteran
I actually find this analysis to be fairly thought provoking. I've often had some of the same sort of thoughts about how
people on different sides of an issue tend to select facts to confirm their worldview as opposed to using facts to
change their view. And yeah, I'm sure I do it as well.
I actually was one of several DP's on a documentary project which is scheduled to release (probably on streaming platforms
but I'm not part of the post team so I'll just update as I receive updates) right before the upcoming Nov.
election. The original title was 'The First Frontier' but I'm not sure if that will be the final title or not. It examines
Alaska's ranked choice voting system and how it could possibly help our country with it's hyper partisan divide, as
ranked choice voting tends to encourage moderates over those on the extreme edges. If you want to see a GOOD
film, you should watch THIS when it comes out. I can HIGHLY recommend the cinematography.....:thumbsup:
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I apologize. I didn't mean to insult you.
I think that sometimes (or even often) there is more to enjoying and critiquing a film than dissecting the feasibility of its plot devices. In this case, the director explicitly stated that realism was not his goal.
But even on a typical movie... Take Die Hard, for example. I have it on good authority that McClane would not be able to crawl around the ductwork freely because of the size and flexibility of different parts of the system, not to mention the heat and the air quality inside it or the sound that he would make crawling around. Does that ruin the movie for anyone? No, it's kind of a minor issue even though it's a major plot device. And the fact is that people will ignore issues like that if they're already emotionally invested in the movie. So, what I would say about Leave the World Behind is that people who fixate on plot devices probably didn't make a connection with the characters, mood, or story at the outset.
Some issues with the movie -- such as the apparent distance from the city -- would only bother me if they affected the plot. So, when we see the drone shot of the city in the distance, the literal distance doesn't matter to me. The point is that we see the city in the distance and we can make some details. If they cheat the distance a little for the sake of the visuals, it's no big deal.
The only time that seeing the city enters the story is when 2 characters see a massive cloud of smoke rising above the city into the atmosphere. They're within the distance necessary to see that.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I'm actually concerned with behaving virtuously although I don't always live up to it. I don't think that makes me better than anyone
I stand by that estimate. I think most people are primarily concerned with getting away with whatever they can get away with. And the appearance of virtue is but a means to that end
In the Milgram experiment, 82.5% of participants continued administering electric shocks to the victim even after he started crying out in pain. 79% of those who continued pushed the voltage all the way to the maximum when ordered to do so. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/03/milgram#:~:text=Milgram found that, after% 20hearing,generator's%20end%2C%20at%20450%20volts.
The Stanford prison experiment was meant to run for 2 weeks but had to be terminated after 6 days because of how abusive the participants became. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I just did - the 10-20%
Okay, thanks for being courageous and giving honest answers.
If in your honest heart of hearts, you thought an election was stolen, which I don't by the way, but for this question you did, and you thought it could imperil your family, would doing everything in your power to halt the rise of the takeover include participation in a Jan 6 style insurrection?
ahalpert said:
If in your honest heart of hearts, you thought an election was stolen, which I don't by the way, but for this question you did, and you thought it could imperil your family, would doing everything in your power to halt the rise of the takeover include participation in a Jan 6 style insurrection?
ahalpert
Major Contributor
That question came loaded for bear.
I don't think that the election was stolen but I also don't consider Jan 6 an insurrection. I think it was part riot, part protest, and there was probably a small number of people with truly nefarious intent. But even they had no viable means of overthrowing the government...
That's all sort of irrelevant to your hypothetical. If I thought an election was stolen and our democracy was slipping away, I would consider joining an insurrection. Speaking more broadly, I would put my life on the line to defend our freedom and our way of life. But if I had any choice about it, I would probably take into account my odds of survival and what was in the overall best interests of my family when deciding what to do.