The Official Movie Thread

[rms]

dude isn't even trying to sound like he knows what he's doing;

2. When looking at the four films as a whole, where does Fury Road take place in the timeline?

Miller: If you put a gun to my head, I’d say after Thunderdome, but it’s very loose. I can’t even work out the chronology of the first, second and third, let alone the fourth thirty years later.

http://www.fandango.com/movie-news/...l-your-big-mad-max-fury-road-questions-749278

 

[CiG]

I'd just call it an alternate timeline taking place between Road Warrior and Thunderdome myself.

But in all honesty it's clearly to me just a reboot of Road Warrior.

 

[rms]

After all, most people outside of Australia saw Road Warrior before Mad Max but still loved it and him as a character.

Max in Road Warrior doesn't require the same mental gymnastics to understand his existence, though. He's a roamer in the post-apocalypse, that's rather simple.

Considering a sequel was likely intended to happen, not really. Getting you to love a character before you know them is a great storytelling tactic.

Great storytelling if you don't wait several years and another film, maybe. What's an example of a film franchise that did this let alone successfully?

 

[CiG]

Great storytelling if you don't wait several years and another film, maybe. What's an example of a film franchise that did this let alone successfully?

Oh I thought you were talking about Furiosa, not Max.

Max in Road Warrior doesn't require the same mental gymnastics to understand his existence, though. He's a roamer in the post-apocalypse, that's rather simple.

What mental gymnastics are required for you to understand any Fury Road character's existence?

 

[Einherjar86]

being worthy of approval, suitable or of high or satisfactory quality are all standards backed by subjective claims?

Okay, first things first: I'm no supporter of objective aesthetic truth or value. I don't think it exists, so all we really have to go by when we judge films is the amount of cultural impact they have, the resources they draw upon, the discourse they participate in, etc. There is no field of pure aesthetic quality that elevates a given work over others.

However, when you talk about what makes a film "good" you're using the language of objective aesthetics. When we say that something is "worthy of approval," we're making a subjective claim about it (what else can we do?); but the meaning of the claim is that the object about which we're speaking possesses qualities that should elicit approval from everyone. And that is an objective quality.

how this doesn't ruin the character for you is so interesting

Again, character development isn't the be-all end-all for me. It's a rejection of the necessity for explanation. Sometimes people act certain ways and we have no idea why. Sometimes it's appealing (to me) to not know why.

@Einherjar86 Yeah I'd say about equal, though I think Furiosa got more quality screen time even if the general duration was equal.

I think it's interesting that Fury Road didn't cause you to think about the connection to the previous films. It's funny, as Fury Road definitely doesn't really seem like a sequel, more like a reboot/alternate timeline or something, except that the first Mad Max is the underlying canon for it.

I think the whole reboot approach is why I didn't really think about it. It's been probably ten years since I saw the original Maxes, and I basically just took the new film to be a reimagining.

 

[rms]

Oh I thought you were talking about Furiosa, not Max.

?? I am. How does that sentence not relate to Furiosa?

What mental gymnastics are required for you to understand any Fury Road character's existence?

How she, in a society where the only women portrayed are sex slaves, is a general/highest ranking military official ?

There's rampant sexual assault in our military and that's barely integrated. She's like .00000000000001% of it. ANd those guys are represented as true barbarians/cavemen/neanderthals

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 That's essentially how I saw it. Actually, I still kind of see it through an angry feminist lens that they used a pre-existing male franchise to be a vehicle for a strong female lead, rather than take a chance on her as a solo thing.

?? I am. How does that sentence not relate to Furiosa?

Are you saying they're waiting too long to expose Furiosa's past? Fury Road didn't come out that long ago dude. But an example where it was successful, Pirates of the Caribbean comes to mind.

How she, in a society where the only women portrayed are sex slaves, is a general/highest ranking military official ?

There's rampant sexual assault in our military and that's barely integrated. She's like .00000000000001% of it. ANd those guys are represented as true barbarians/cavemen/neanderthals

She's missing a fucking hand and is quite clearly a brutal Red Sonja-esque warrior. If you look to history for great female warrior leaders, they usually rise in ranks due to their ability to convincingly form strong power relationships while also out-fighting the lower ranking men and being able to emasculate them.

 

[rms]

Again, character development isn't the be-all end-all for me. It's a rejection of the necessity for explanation. Sometimes people act certain ways and we have no idea why. Sometimes it's appealing (to me) to not know why.

doesn't need to be developed, but how it's not just blatantly ignored in Fury Road to you is what I cannot understand

but the meaning of the claim is that the object about which we're speaking possesses qualities that should elicit approval from everyone.

objective aesthetic truth = the object about which we're speaking possesses qualities that should elicit approval from everyone. -- Am I getting this right? Why didn't you expand on the definition of "worthy of approval" more, because it sounds like both statements, good and worthy of approval, require the same if not similar words to that should "elicit approval from everyone"

but framing movies in a "good" or "Bad" way inherently elicits a response, because you should be attempting to be persuasive.

 

[rms]

She's missing a fucking hand and is quite clearly a brutal Red Sonja-esque warrior. If you look to history for great female warrior leaders, they usually rise in ranks due to their ability to convincingly form strong power relationships while also out-fighting the lower ranking men and being able to emasculate them.

she lost to Max or barely won when he was restrained to the truck in the beginning. what a ridiculous assertion you just made

if we look at Boudicea or something, she got power because her husband died and became a bad ass that way. don't know enough historical-bad-ass-women to generalize one way or the other. but none of our societies are like Fury Road in quite some time

 

[CiG]

she lost to Max or barely won when he was restrained to the truck in the beginning. what a ridiculous assertion you just made

if we look at Boudicea or something, she got power because her husband died and became a bad ass that way. don't know enough historical-bad-ass-women to generalize one way or the other. but none of our societies are like Fury Road in quite some time

Well that's just an obvious product of the writer's understandable preference for the titular character.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's rampant sexual assault in our military and that's barely integrated. She's like .00000000000001% of it. ANd those guys are represented as true barbarians/cavemen/neanderthals

Theoretically speaking, it makes sense in that kind of society to permit one woman a place of relative empowerment, or even liberty. It creates a sense of possible ascension for others. Additionally, Furiosa has to act masculine in order to be an empowered woman, which is another important aspect of her character, which is obvious despite any significant development. She's radically de-feminized, unlike the other women in the film. It's suggestive that the only relatively powerful woman in the film isn't a wife, or concubine, or queen, etc. She's a warrior. She has to abide by male codes of agency and ambition.

objective aesthetic truth = the object about which we're speaking possesses qualities that should elicit approval from everyone. -- Am I getting this right? Why didn't you expand on the definition of "worthy of approval" more, because it sounds like both statements, good and worthy of approval, require the same if not similar words to that should "elicit approval from everyone"

I don't understand what you're asking. Saying that something is "good" is saying that it's "worthy of approval." I'm not sure what you want me to expand on.

 

[CiG]

She's radically de-feminized, unlike the other women in the film. It's suggestive that the only relatively powerful woman in the film isn't a wife, or concubine, or queen, etc. She's a warrior. She has to abide by male codes of agency and ambition.

Great point.

 

[CiG]

 

[Satanstoenail]

Just watched True Grit on the telly for the first time since I saw it just after it came out. Totally forgot it was a Coen Brothers film. It occurred to me that Tarantino has been attempting to be the Coen Brothers for some time.

 

[rms]

Saying that something is "good" is saying that it's "worthy of approval." I'm not sure what you want me to expand on.

well, you said it's a subjective claim so there's really nothing else to say. you are just mad you're taking my comment of "good" so literal that my opinion is somehow being the "right" one when in fact it's not

Additionally, Furiosa has to act masculine in order to be an empowered woman, which is another important aspect of her character, which is obvious despite any significant development. She's radically de-feminized, unlike the other women in the film. It's suggestive that the only relatively powerful woman in the film isn't a wife, or concubine, or queen, etc. She's a warrior. She has to abide by male codes of agency and ambition.

I think it's clear why she is the way she is, but the question you asked and I have asked is how was she allowed to become this person in that society.

 

[Einherjar86]

well, you said it's a subjective claim so there's really nothing else to say. you are just mad you're taking my comment of "good" so literal that my opinion is somehow being the "right" one when in fact it's not

Fine, I'm very mad. Very, very mad. I'm mad that we can't just disagree with conventional definitions whenever we feel like it.

I think it's clear why she is the way she is, but the question you asked and I have asked is how was she allowed to become this person in that society.

If the answer was that it was entirely by accident (i.e. she was chosen arbitrarily, or just happened to succeed in not being weeded out of some archaic military hierarchy), would you be satisfied?

 

[arg]

i got so excited for a chestburster goddamnit

 

[Einherjar86]

Just watched True Grit on the telly for the first time since I saw it just after it came out. Totally forgot it was a Coen Brothers film. It occurred to me that Tarantino has been attempting to be the Coen Brothers for some time.

Yeah, he wishes he was the Coen Bros.

 

[rms]

If the answer was that it was entirely by accident (i.e. she was chosen arbitrarily, or just happened to succeed in not being weeded out of some archaic military hierarchy), would you be satisfied?

no, I don't think that makes any sense in the world presented in Fury Road. I cannot think of a logical or rational way that she could have gained so much power in that society. It'd be like asking if there were cell phones in the 1950s and you just say "what if they were invented by accident, would you be satisfied?"

Yeah, he wishes he was the Coen Bros.

I thought Quentin had a much bigger hard on for Asian directors than anyone else. What piece/aspect of a film would you consider most-Coen?

 

[Einherjar86]

no, I don't think that makes any sense in the world presented in Fury Road. I cannot think of a logical or rational way that she could have gained so much power in that society. It'd be like asking if there were cell phones in the 1950s and you just say "what if they were invented by accident, would you be satisfied?"

Ha, okay, that isn't really the same thing, but okay... (also, plenty of important inventions/discoveries were made by accident)

My point is that people succeed by accident all the time in real life. But the very pull and attraction of narrative demands some more meaningful explanation. For what it's worth, I doubt Miller would do that if he chooses to make sequels exploring Furiosa's history; but I do think it's a bit presumptuous to demand that a film provide a total explanation, especially when it isn't even trying to be remotely realistic or character-driven. It's simply not elemental to the narrative itself.

I thought Quentin had a much bigger hard on for Asian directors than anyone else. What piece/aspect of a film would you consider most-Coen?

Personally, as much as I love films like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, I think they pale next to films like Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, and Fargo. Since we're talking about the role of the accidental and the contingent in storytelling, I think that Tarantino's movies thrive on contingency but that the Coen Bros do more with the brutality and hopelessness of things happening by mere fucking chance (which is why No Country for Old Men was the perfect novel for them to adapt, and their adaptation is better than the novel, in my opinion). Tarantino can't get away from the absurdity angle, which is fine--it's just that the Coen Bros have demonstrated their capacity to deal with contingency in both humorous and violently cynical ways.