The Official Movie Thread

My point is that people succeed by accident all the time in real life.

accidents occur when there is a system in place to facilitate them. how many women were in the Fury Road military? how many women were in that society in general?

discoveries and inventions can happen by accident, but mice in our society don't create the next generation of smart phones.

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.

sounds like you've gone comparative rather than Satan's idea that Tarantino wants to emulate Coen-film techniques

For No Country, meh. The book was eerily similar if not mirror copies of each other from my recollection. Very similar to Fight Club, cept Fincher expanded more than the novel
 
accidents occur when there is a system in place to facilitate them. how many women were in the Fury Road military? how many women were in that society in general?

discoveries and inventions can happen by accident, but mice in our society don't create the next generation of smart phones.

Are you comparing the women of Fury Road to mice?

sounds like you've gone comparative rather than Satan's idea that Tarantino wants to emulate Coen-film techniques

I made an off-hand comment to ST's post. I'm not really sure what I saying beyond expressing my preference for the Coen Bros.

For No Country, meh. The book was eerily similar if not mirror copies of each other from my recollection. Very similar to Fight Club, cept Fincher expanded more than the novel

McCarthy's novel contained more dialogue that, while excellent, didn't add much to the overall narrative. The Coens amplified the narrative motion and cut some of the dialogue, and I think it made for a more taut, compelling story.
 
i'm having a hard time remembering exactly how many women are in the "main" society, but i remember a room full of old breast feeders and the young concubines/baby makers. then furiosa, that's it. that's why i said there's no way women think of themselves in some sort of philosophical or intelligent way in that society(women as property), they are subjugated to the basis of their biological needs for survival, nothing more
 
i'm having a hard time remembering exactly how many women are in the "main" society, but i remember a room full of old breast feeders and the young concubines/baby makers. then furiosa, that's it. that's why i said there's no way women think of themselves in some sort of philosophical or intelligent way in that society(women as property), they are subjugated to the basis of their biological needs for survival, nothing more

I have two responses to this.

a) Women are, overwhelmingly, reduced to biological things, you're correct; but saying this precludes any possible rejection of such social organization on a philosophical level deprives the women of any actionable agency. You're basically saying that suffering and oppression is relative, and since these women don't know anything else they can't have access to the cognitive tools necessary for formulating rebellious attitudes. I don't agree with this at all because language, even hegemonically structured, contains the sparks of its discontents. Seeing as these women have access to language such that they can form the sentence "Women aren't things," they have access to a level of cognitive aptitude that would enable them to reject their social position.

If we follow your line of reasoning, then it would have been impossible for African slaves to formulate the concept of themselves as property; but we know that they did, many of them without the assistance of white abolitionists. One of the things that white slaveholders did was prohibit black slaves from learning how to read; but they did allow them access to bibles, because they wouldn't be good Christians if they didn't. And lo and behold, blacks taught themselves to read, and this was an important step toward emancipation. There's no reason to assume such possibilities would be foreclosed to the women in this film.

b) Furiosa wasn't raised in Immortan Joe's colony. She was raised elsewhere and kidnapped. Granted, she was young when this happened, but I don't think there's any reason to completely foreclose the possibility that she maintains some knowledge of her previous life and taught Joe's concubines about existing as free women.
 
b) Furiosa wasn't raised in Immortan Joe's colony. She was raised elsewhere and kidnapped. Granted, she was young when this happened, but I don't think there's any reason to completely foreclose the possibility that she maintains some knowledge of her previous life and taught Joe's concubines about existing as free women.

I thought she was like 4 or 5 when captured, and I have no idea what the source material is for this (sounds like a comic book or novel) but it suggests she is around 20 years old.

http://madmax.wikia.com/wiki/Imperator_Furiosa

kill her mother, force her to join your society and then make her the only woman in your military? Furiosa is quite the good forgiving Christian, apparently.
I don't agree with this at all because language, even hegemonically structured, contains the sparks of its discontents. Seeing as these women have access to language such that they can form the sentence "Women aren't things," they have access to a level of cognitive aptitude that would enable them to reject their social position.

but why would they have language? they, in all likelihood, be uneducated and possibly mutes living in a closed off room. having the ability to read and write seems even more ridiculous. Nothing i've read from Miller about this movie proposes the idea that the idea he was putting this much thought into this storyline so we're giving it more credit than it deserves tbh

If we follow your line of reasoning, then it would have been impossible for African slaves to formulate the concept of themselves as property; but we know that they did, many of them without the assistance of white abolitionists.

slaves in Fury Road and in American history aren't comparable. there were 'levels' of domestic slavery, especially for women for one. they were also exposed to the outside world, or lived in both 'slave' world and 'non-slave' worlds. Slaves also carried and developed a new culture, language etc on slave ships during the middle passage. Slaves also outnumbered Europeans in I think all of the Caribbean and some southern states for a short period of time

And lo and behold, blacks taught themselves to read, and this was an important step toward emancipation. There's no reason to assume such possibilities would be foreclosed to the women in this film

there is definitely reason to assume they weren't literate or educated in any way. instead of treating this as illogical you are assuming Miller thought of all this and decided not to show us.
 
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.

Yes but they utterly destroy O' Brother that's for sure. Also, my favourite of his is Jackie Brown.

(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

The film kind of devolved into a shitfest by the end though. Well, I liked the ending.
 
@rms

I'm simply offering explanations. You're adamant that none of it could have happened.

Also, slaves in Fury Road and in American history are absolutely comparable, especially by the standards we outlined here, i.e. whether or not they could have achieved some kind of revolutionary agency.

What makes you think these women couldn't have developed their own culture, given that everyone in the Mad Max universe lives in a world that presumably contains traces of the world prior to nuclear apocalypse? What makes you think they couldn't recognize or experience oppression, and know it to be so? What makes you think they lack the cognitive capacity to conceptualize oppression, especially given the fact that they have access to the language their captors use (and, unlike African slaves, they actually can read and write)?

Your reasoning basically ends at "Miller doesn't show me, therefore it does not exist." I don't think that's a rational expectation to have of a film like this. If you disagree then you disagree, and I'm not going to keep trying to convince you.

Yes but they utterly destroy O' Brother that's for sure. Also, my favourite of his is Jackie Brown.

You just think Pam Grier is hot. ;) (and she fucking is)

The film kind of devolved into a shitfest by the end though. Well, I liked the ending.

It does devolve, but I think that's kinda the point. It's a total clusterfuck of bad luck, basically.
 
Didn't one of the Wives have Stockholm syndrome essentially and try to go back to Joe?

You just think Pam Grier is hot. ;) (and she fucking is)

:tickled:

It does devolve, but I think that's kinda the point. It's a total clusterfuck of bad luck, basically.

Holy shit good point. I never actually considered that, which is dumb because the film's underlying theme is luck, chance etc. I need to watch it again now with that in mind.
 
Also, slaves in Fury Road and in American history are absolutely comparable, especially by the standards we outlined here, i.e. whether or not they could have achieved some kind of revolutionary agency.

I just explained how they were entirely different, you offer no counter yet say they are comparable. Slaves brought culture with them and adapted it to a new continent. These women are likely the daughters of the women in the room next door. There were no signs they practiced or adopted the religion nearby or even know what a religion is. They also weren't surrounded by 'civilized' men to influence them.

What makes you think they lack the cognitive capacity to conceptualize oppression, especially given the fact that they have access to the language their captors use (and, unlike African slaves, they actually can read and write)?

I just said there is no reason for them to be knowledgeable enough to read and write, yet you ignored it and continued down this path. The men in the military don't show any signs of education nor literacy but the women have access to it?

What makes you think they couldn't recognize or experience oppression, and know it to be so?

humans are relative creatures by and large so i'm not entirely sure that they would recognize it nor have any basis of what any other life could be. studies say women are 'less happy' now with all their personal freedoms than when they were restricted, obviously the survey/data cannot be taken purely at face value but there is something there.

"Miller doesn't show me, therefore it does not exist."

well, no. he does show 'me,' you keep citing it(the writing). he also shows it with Furiosa's character. It just doesn't add up. And nothing makes me thinks he has put this much thought into this film, conceptually, since it's not this kind of film at all. It's a brutish action film with feminist overtones to say it lightly. it's not Dogtooth in relation to language, for instance.

your position is "here is 1 piece of evidence that supports my theory" while seemingly ignoring all the counter evidence, don't get how you act like you have this mountain of evidence to support your position.

What makes you think these women couldn't have developed their own culture, given that everyone in the Mad Max universe lives in a world that presumably contains traces of the world prior to nuclear apocalypse?

if that was true then those idiots wouldn't be huffing chrome for some stupid ass reason and acting like juvenile metal creatures. but sure, they maintained a culture similar to ours :loco:
 
Man, I watched Blood Simple last night and was completely blown away. By far the best Coen film i've seen.

For years I put it off because I thought I heard it was some pre-Fargo type film that was weaker, and the IMDB tagline does seem to contribute to that idea. But wowza, I haven't been wow'd by editing, camera work, sound engineering and overall story in quite some time. Really refreshing, highly recommended if you've been like me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/20...mplications/lCDT2YC30JcTy1pSfes49N/story.html

amZaklpA3_480w_v1.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Man, I watched Blood Simple last night and was completely blown away. By far the best Coen film i've seen.

For years I put it off because I thought I heard it was some pre-Fargo type film that was weaker, and the IMDB tagline does seem to contribute to that idea. But wowza, I haven't been wow'd by editing, camera work, sound engineering and overall story in quite some time. Really refreshing, highly recommended if you've been like me.

barton fink is probably the one most similar, if you want to explore early coens further.

i've posted this before but my coens order of preference:
the man who wasn't there > miller's crossing > blood simple > inside llewyn davis > barton fink > no country for old men > lebowski > fargo = raising arizona > burn after reading > true grit* > a serious man* > hail caesar > the hudsucker proxy > intolerable cruelty > o brother

*need rewatches

i like everything except maybe the last two and love at least the first six.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
I saw llewyn davis when it first came out so i'm fuzzy on it now, but I remember it being a solid story but went nowhere...Manchester By the Sea-ish

I dig O Brother and wasn't The Ladykillers a Coen film? Or just one of em?