|
DeimosRising posted:It really doesn't matter if the set designer totally shares this design sensibility and sees this upper middle class bourgie aesthetic as aspirational. In fact you're right that it's utterly typical of a well to do New Yorker, but it's weird you think that contradicts what MHB and HUNDU are saying. The apartment is characterization of Chris. I wouldn't say "utterly typical" but "aspirational" is dead on. It's bougie but in a really specific way. Stunting for the 'gram, as the kids would say. Escobarbarian posted:So if he was "legit" black his apartment would be different? You get how I think that assertion is kind of weird, right? Dude nobody's apartment looks like this. It's how an apartment looks in a catalog.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:This is simply characterization so I don't see what the problem is. The film is much worse if Chris is just a woke totem because you end up concluding that he should've taken the red pill or some such nonsense. Magic Hate Ball posted:Replace versus with "and". Well, yes, that's the tension. Racism creates race. Racial hierarchies exist for the sake of exploitation. The Armitage family therefore reifies blackness in their victims in order to exploit them in ways that race has been reified to justify mass incarceration, slavery, and segregation in all facets of society. Sure, we can read them as conservatives (slaveowners and traders) but we can also read them as liberals (northern creditors who profited immensely from slavery; Progressive Era/New Deal/Great Society reformers whose programs were built on racism). The key is Root, though, who accepts that race is a construct and refuses to believe racial myths; and yet, he profits directly from them. He's the most important character in the film. Why? Because he's the representation of the belief that the construction of race creates racism rather than the other way around. If he denies racial biotruths, he can't be racist, as if racism is about belief rather than action. One way of reading the film is that Chris feels disconnected from his blackness and therefore constructs a heightened version of reality in which white people are trying to steal it. Chris's motivations stem from some internal, essential blackness; whereas, the Armitage family is inherently oppressive because they are internally, essentially white. I argue that this reading perpetuates racism and misunderstanding of race and power. It also leads to questions like "is Jordan Peele saying interracial dating is bad?" Where in the movie does Peele present that all white people are bad? He doesn't. We're making assumptions about this community. We're also dragging in assumptions about black people, black art, black living spaces, black relationships, and assuming Chris is representative of all of that (despite, again, little textual evidence of that AND the fact that black identity and culture isn't monolithic [a Key and Peele hit]). Another reading is that Chris is trying to preserve his own autonomy in the face of capitalist exploitation and violence. He's not concerned with his 'essence of blackness' because that's not real. He's concerned with how people create and perceive race. He claims his blackness because that's the world he lives in. If he doesn't claim his blackness, he knows what will happen with the police officer. If he doesn't claim his blackness to Rose's family, he knows they'll claim it for him. In the face of relentless racism at the Armitage house, where everything he does and says is attributed to his blackness from the first moment, he begins to rebel, leading to an escape that involves the visual metaphors of 'white' and 'black' objects losing their racial coding as they're used to tear down the oppression of racism. Most people seem to be arguing for a synthesis of the two, with Chris's internalized racism (and classism) shaping who he is. I don't disagree, because it's impossible for him to exist outside the realities of racism and capitalism. And Chris isn't some flawless superhero or "woke totem." But, I think the movie is far closer to reading two than reading one, and I think that the counterarguments veer dangerously into perpetuating racist assumptions that race is somehow inherent. i am the bird fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:So, to complete the reading, Chris constructs Root the bodysnatcher to affirm the paranoia of 'stolen black essence' but then imagines that the bodysnatcher explicitly rejects the idea of black essence because [reasons]. Hudson does have a motivation to lie: he wants to think he's a good person, but believes racism is wrong. He's not lying for Chris's benefit HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I wouldn't say "utterly typical" but "aspirational" is dead on. It's bougie but in a really specific way. Stunting for the 'gram, as the kids would say. Yeah that was a clumsy thought on my part, it's very typical in concept, but the execution is a fantasy, like the apartment in the background of a commercial. DeimosRising fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
I actually agree with the bulk of that, i am the bird, but no way in HELL am I quoting it. DeimosRising posted:Yeah that was a clumsy thought on my part, it's very typical in concept, but the execution is a fantasy, like the apartment in the background of a commercial. A catalogue apartment. It's like an AirBNB or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:Most people seem to be arguing for a synthesis of the two, with Chris's internalized racism (and classism) shaping who he is. I don't disagree, because it's impossible for him to exist outside the realities of racism and capitalism. And Chris isn't some flawless superhero or "woke totem." But, I think the movie is far closer to reading two than reading one, and I think that the counterarguments veer dangerously into perpetuating racist assumptions that race is somehow inherent. Well I guess this clears things up; because nobody (to my recollection) has actually performed your 'reading one'. That's to say you have created a false dichotomy between 'Chris is a dumb liberal and essentialism is true' and 'Chris is smart leftist hero and essentialism is false'. What people have actually said is that Chris is a dumb liberal and essentialism is false. So now your question is where your fear comes from - what is the "danger"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
These arguments about his apartment are crazy. Have you guys literally never been in a nice apartment? It's big for NY, but aside from that it's not too far off how a lot of people live. I know people who live in places that look similar to that. I also know people who dress as neatly as Chris. Not everyone lives in an anime squalor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
Chris' apartment is extremely relevant to setting the bar for his characterization. It's what you slept through in freshman English when your teacher was talking about "show don't tell." If we can't engage on something as basic as set design what the gently caress is even the point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
might as well toss out the set design of the mansion too, it certainly has nothing to say about the characters
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying it's not unreasonable to have an apartment that looks that nice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:might as well toss out the set design of the mansion too, it certainly has nothing to say about the characters Any rich family can have a deer head above their pre-op torture station it don't mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
well why not posted:These arguments about his apartment are crazy. Have you guys literally never been in a nice apartment? It's big for NY, but aside from that it's not too far off how a lot of people live. I know people who live in places that look similar to that. I also know people who dress as neatly as Chris. Where is it being said that these places don't exist?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Where is it being said that these places don't exist? Get Out is a retelling of Fight Club except Chris is Edward Norton with his lovely IKEA apartment and almost getting whitewashed is meeting Tyler Durden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:So if he was "legit" black his apartment would be different? You get how I think that assertion is kind of weird, right? So why does the dude go out to the housing projects for material when he wants to make 'art' and choose a bougie ikea catalog to actually live in, is the ghetto just objectively where all the creativity is
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:might as well toss out the set design of the mansion too, it certainly has nothing to say about the characters Yeah I'm not getting the push back on the apartment chat. It's pretty basic stuff. Homes are almost always described as extensions of the owners, reflecting that person's desires, beliefs, interests, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
well why not posted:I'm not saying it's irrelevant, I'm saying it's not unreasonable to have an apartment that looks that nice. The entire conversation is currently about interrogating the aesthetics of the apartment: why does this apartment 'look nice'? But we're also talking about the formal qualities of the film that, for example, link the apartment to the coffee shop. Like, we specifically cut to the donut case from the selection of photos that Chris has been selling. So although people have assumed that Rose's buying of the donuts represents a predatory, insectile drive to castrate and consume her mates, what it actually indicates is that she really does like Chris' art. This whole apartment represents a desirable lifestyle for her. And we can even say it looks so magazine-clean because Chris is, obviously, trying to impress her. (In any case, I'd question how people are reconciling 'generic normal apartment' with the large photos of pregnant black women adorning the walls, etc. Is everyone familiar with Belly?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:(In any case, I'd question how people are reconciling 'generic normal apartment' with the large photos of pregnant black women adorning the walls, etc. Is everyone familiar with Belly?) I don't know if Chris would ever put on Gummo for mood. Hard to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
weekly font posted:Get Out is a retelling of Fight Club except Chris is Edward Norton with his lovely IKEA apartment and almost getting whitewashed is meeting Tyler Durden. Well no, Gus is his Tyler Durden and Rose is Marla Singer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:(In any case, I'd question how people are reconciling 'generic normal apartment' with the large photos of pregnant black women adorning the walls, etc. Is everyone familiar with Belly?) They're presumably his own photos, which means he's living in his own gallery show (it could be misdirection but it would also be fitting).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I don't know if Chris would ever put on Gummo for mood. He certainly wouldn't - but Chris doesn't need to, because his urban photography already is the 'reasonable', non-confrontational middle ground between the high-gloss prints and the Gummo abjection that Tommy uses to decorate his white-cube mansion in the middle of somewhere. Magic Hate Ball posted:They're presumably his own photos, which means he's living in his own gallery show (it could be misdirection but it would also be fitting). Right: the point is that Chris' photos are partly for Rose, but mostly for himself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I don't know if Chris would ever put on Gummo for mood. Hard to say. When his friends from art school visit, sure
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
My take on Chris' apartment is that you would never guess a black guy lives there (I mean there's nothing to particularly indicate anyone of any specific ethnicity lives there), which has kind of a double-sided effect. A. It might hint at Chris already on his way to "assimilating" into white culture, and it's possible Rose picked up on that the first time she went there (which made him all that more ideal of a target) and B. The meta aspect of me, a white dude, presuming what a black guy's apartment is "supposed" to look like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Racial equality also involves recognizing that black dudes can have terrible taste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:The key is Root, though, who accepts that race is a construct and refuses to believe racial myths; and yet, he profits directly from them. He's the most important character in the film. Why? Because he's the representation of the belief that the construction of race creates racism rather than the other way around. If he denies racial biotruths, he can't be racist, as if racism is about belief rather than action. But just like Root's color-blindness (literal blindness, in fact!) is racist for the reasons you talk about, Rose's preference is both explicitly racist (she hunts down black people so her dad can scoop their brains out) and a metaphor for racism more generally, because her attraction takes the form of treating people as objects (trophies to be won and captured in snapshots, generic categories to be Googled for, like "NCAA prospects," and so on). Perhaps more crucially, she is also a stereotypical "ally." She purports to (and in fact does) understand what's objectionable about people asking Chris about his dick, saying "my man" to him, and so on. She's woke enough to know what sorts of things constitute microaggressions, why and why Chris would be pissed off about them. She goes out of her way to defend Chris when the police officer stops them. But, of course, it turns out that this just makes her worse, not better. Her understanding is what makes her feigned love convincing and also maybe keeps Chris from being so uncomfortable as to make him want to leave even earlier. The argument with the cop was a way to keep people from realizing where Chris disappeared to. And obviously all the understanding of microaggressions in the world is no help if you just sit idly by while your psycho brother commits actual aggression. So, I think Root and Rose are the two best examples of the movie's critique of liberal racism: Root is colorblind and Rose does get racism and does legitimately want to spend time with black people and so on. But all to no avail.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
So, if Rose snatched up the Grandfather's currrent 'host' body, and the 'guests' can interact or are merged with the 'hosts' does that mean that Grandfather has memory of having sex with his granddaughter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:her attraction takes the form of treating people as objects (...captured in snapshots...). You're missing this thematic link between Rose and Chris - that is, their photography. There's the cut from the tour through Chris' oeuvre to Rose carefully selecting her favourite donut. The auction scene is an art auction - literally, bidding on a photo. Rose of course has her collection up on the wall, just like Chris does. That's the meat of the film: that the naive Republicans got all their gauche notions about race from watching pornography and ESPN, while the professorial father is selling them a lesson and an experience in tolerance. Remove this criticism of the media industry, and Chris' complicity in it, and you're left with the standard mistake of confusing racists for racism itself. Like, Rose is evil because she's a slut who likes black dick. As if that's the real danger here. The only significant difference between Rose's and Chris' photography - the thing that makes Rose 'evil' - is perhaps that her photos are not for sale. It's her private collection, for herself, whereas Chris' art is at least partially for Rose.* This is proof positive that the film offers no criticism of 'woke' liberalism, but instead merely depicts fantasizes about the disruptive other's access to a secret, perverse jouissance. And these fantasies just happen to bear an uncanny resemblance to the alt-right's 'cuck' meme. The error clear in your assertions in that Rose's secret intentions trump her actions - that the good she does 'doesn't count' because she harbours badthought. Her "care-levels" are insufficient or whatever. Again, what's unfathomabie is that Rose is merely a stupid person who likes Chris for his mediocre photography. A stupid person who, from her perspective, is trying to stop her boyfriend from going nuts and, later, murdering her entire family. *Chris is obviously selling himself to her to some extent. Like the father, he is selling a lesson and an experience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
No, Chris's photography does the opposite. It frees people. That's literally what it does in the movie. He takes a photograph and it frees the people who are trapped inside their own bodies. So that's what separates Rose's photos from Chris's photos. Hers trap people. His free people. She is an oppressor. He is a liberator. I do like your point about Chris's photos being lovely. I am not sure I like that reading, because it might just be "this is a movie, we have to just tell you they're good and you take our word for it." But it is definitely very tempting. The story might be about how Chris goes from a lovely trendy photographer who takes "good" photos that simply serve to trap him further in the white supremacist society that values the photos and the person who takes them (only instrumentally, of course) to an actual photographer who takes "bad" photos (the first is a surreptitious shot that he doesn't get to frame correctly, the second is literally just a shot of the dude's abs or whatever in order to trigger the flash) that liberate him and others. I also don't think I said that Rose's secret intentions trump her actions. Her actions are all bad. Her concern for the police officer's harassment of Chris is really just an attempt to make sure nobody knows where he has disappeared to. She doesn't take any good actions. I don't know if I'd say it's unfathomable that Rose is merely a stupid person who likes Chris for his mediocre photography. I fathomed it for a bit and then I decided it wasn't a great reading because it doesn't do a good job of accounting for (for instance) what she saw in the other people, why she's Googling NCAA prospects, what's up with the way she eats cereal, or really any goddamn thing about this movie. TychoCelchuuu fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:I also don't think I said that Rose's secret intentions trump her actions. Her actions are all bad. Her concern for the police officer's harassment of Chris is really just an attempt to make sure nobody knows where he has disappeared to. You are literally saying that Rose's work fighting police harassment is trumped by her secret intentions. And here are Rose's bad traits - that make her a false "ally" - as listed in your previous post: -Has a fetish (googles black porn). -Hunts down black people in order to lobotomize them. Those are the only two. Extrapolating from there, it's a basic game of completing the sentence. What you wrote is this: "White liberal allies are bad because... they google black porn and then lobotomize blacks." This is an exceedingly poor criticism of 'woke' liberalism. However, it is an almost textbook example of fantasies about the excessive jouissance of the other (in this case, the racist other). Note, in your latest post, the concern over how Rose eats her cereal: "What really bothers us about 'the other' is the peculiar way he organizes his enjoyment, precisely the surplus, the 'excess' that pertains to this way: the smell of 'their' food, 'their' noisy songs and dances, 'their' strange manners, 'their' attitude to work...". (Zizek) And this is why you are getting sidetracked talking about how Rose is an oppressor because she traps men inside photos(???) and, again, offering no actual criticism of liberalism. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"White liberal allies are bad because... they google black porn and then lobotomize blacks." SuperMechagodzilla posted:However, it is an almost textbook example of fantasies about the excessive jouissance of the other (in this case, the racist other). edit: gently caress I didn't even write "her cereal" in the first place! I said "the way she eats cereal." Jesus Christ dude. edit #2: I've decided you were attributing the reading to the movie, not to me, which makes more sense (I'm leaving the previous stuff I wrote as the billionth reminder to myself in this thread that I should be fairer to you). Also, you're basically right, I think, except that you take the othering to be exclusive of the critique of liberalism I'm attributing to the film, rather than part and parcel of it. There's a tendency to view othering as a boogeyman, which I think you're picking up on. I'm not sure that's a fair tendency. Sometimes othering is called for because the other is the other. SuperMechagodzilla posted:And this is why you are getting sidetracked talking about how Rose is an oppressor because she traps men inside photos(???) and, again, offering no actual criticism of liberalism. I'm not sure I get your "(???)" after my talk of Rose trapping people in photos. I mean, that's what she does! The people in her photos are the people she's trapped. They're of course not literally trapped in the photo in the sense of being contained in the Polaroid or whatever. But they are trapped, and they are in the photo, and they are trapped in virtue of having ended up in a position such that those photos were taken. Chris is the opposite. His photos free people. Of course, they are not literally free in the photo, etc. But when he takes his photo, he frees them. TychoCelchuuu fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:Poor because...? Because 'woke' liberals aren't really like that, because they are but these things aren't rightfully criticized, or because the metaphor doesn't work, or what? Yes. All of the above. "Watches porn and then secretly lobotomizes people" is a criticism of Jeffery Dahmer, not 'woke' liberals. And you're not even doing an effective job of explaining why porn is bad (trapping people in photos, but they're not literally trapped in photos...? Liberals eat cereal weirdly?). It might be helpful to step back for a second, and look at the movie as a movie. Rose is the primary antagonist of the film, which is why she gets the big standoff scene at the end after everyone else is quickly dispatched. Now, what makes Rose an antagonist? That's a rhetorical question. You might say that it is her racism, but that would be incorrect. Being an antagonist is distinct from being bad person. You can have an antagonist who is a good person, because the antagonist is merely the character who stands in the way of the protagonist. So, put simply, Rose is the antagonist because she stands between the union of Chris and Rod. She is actively working to keep Rod and Chris separate. She is good when she promises to help Chris GET OUT and return to the apartment (where Rod is sitting comfortably, taking care of the dog), and revealed to be evil when she ultimately refuses to lend her car keys. She is good when she enables Chris' paranoia, and evil when she criticizes it. Again, the film is structured around a love triangle. Like a romantic comedy. Chris defeats the antagonist when he rejects her love and instead gets into the car with Rod, who "told [him] so." Rose's racism is a character trait that contributes to this dynamic, but is ancillary. The point is that she is not Rod. In the ideological microcosm of the film, this means that she is defined by her opposition to belief in the illuminati conspiracy theory. In other words, the straightforward meaning of the film is that "woke liberals are bad because they are against belief in the illuminati conspiracy". That's much more accurate than what you've written, but still a very poor criticism of 'woke' liberals (unless you're already into David Icke). However, I have been writing an ideological critique of the film, which concerns the truth beyond meaning. To look into what makes Rose actually bad, you can go to the scene with the cop - where Rose actively discourages Chris from working with the police, because this racist cop could have helped him. The film's true criticism of 'woke' liberals is that they are opposed to any form of state power, which includes the possibility of an antiracist state. Instead of standing for power to the people, Rose presents herself as a 'free market' solution to racism. "You don't need those bad police because I will keep you safe." And the bleak joke of the film is that Rod stands for the same thing. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
Just admit that you agree with what the family does SMG.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Just admit that you agree with what the family does SMG. Nah; the other bleak joke of the film is that the procedure doesn't even work. There's nothing cool about being a black Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:(Indeed, the idea that a fetish is itself racist even if it's held by someone who is otherwise not racist is a pretty out there argument that not a lot of people are willing to sign up for.) This sentence is doing a lot of work
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You are literally saying that Rose's work fighting police harassment is trumped by her secret intentions. That's because it is. That entire anti-police harassment exchange wasn't really about Rose taking issue with police harassment. She didn't want the cop to see or run Chris' ID and then have a paper trail of him traveling out that way, so that he can disappear all that much easier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
well why not posted:So, if Rose snatched up the Grandfather's currrent 'host' body, and the 'guests' can interact or are merged with the 'hosts' does that mean that Grandfather has memory of having sex with his granddaughter? I got the impression that there's not a ton of merging at play. The new guy is driving the ship, and the old guy is, at best, in the engine room, and the captain never needs to go down into the engine room.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Bill Dungsroman posted:That's because it is. That entire anti-police harassment exchange wasn't really about Rose taking issue with police harassment. She didn't want the cop to see or run Chris' ID and then have a paper trail of him traveling out that way, so that he can disappear all that much easier. They should have just hit him over the head and threw him in a trunk, then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:In other words, the straightforward meaning of the film is that "woke liberals are bad because they are against belief in the illuminati conspiracy". That's much more accurate than what you've written, but still a very poor criticism of 'woke' liberals (unless you're already into David Icke).
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Bill Dungsroman posted:That's because it is. That entire anti-police harassment exchange wasn't really about Rose taking issue with police harassment. She didn't want the cop to see or run Chris' ID and then have a paper trail of him traveling out that way, so that he can disappear all that much easier. Her intentions are irrelevant; Chris would have been left without a paper trail either way. This may be easier to understand if I put things in terms of superhero movies. Rose is the secret identity of the supervillain character Ro-Ro: “We started to refer to her as Ro Ro. It’s more interesting if she actually is kind of an actress herself and goes back to a different version of herself so she can bring home the bacon." -Allison Williams Rose is a performance by Ro-Ro in the same way Clark Kent (a character) is a performance by Superman (an actor). Now, you and Tycho are effectively striving to criticize Clark Kent's journalism by saying he wears a red cape and flies. The character does not wear a red cape, and cannot fly. The actor does those things. A real-world example: we do not say that Max Rockatansky is an antisemite because he is played by Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson is an antisemite, but Max Rockatansky is not, because he is simply a character. So, to repeat, you have been criticizing Ro-Ro, but have made zero criticism of Rose - and that's a major failure. As K.Waste and I have repeatedly pointed out, Rose is an extremely (and unnecessarily) elaborate performance. Rose is, in fact, far more realistic and fleshed-out than Ro-Ro - who is ostensibly the real person 'beneath' the mask. And we should emphasize that Ro-Ro is only barely glimpsed by Chris, and not seen at all by Rod. So when we see Ro-Ro in bed, whose perspective is this? The earlier phone conversation implies that it's Rod's. Rod literally sees that Rose is an emotionless evil, despite only actually hearing her very emotive voice. This is that familiar belief in (and fear of) the concept of 'trolling', where you ignore the person's actions and fixate on whether they really mean it inside. The truth is that there is no such thing as a troll. If Ro-Ro spends 24 hours a day performing flawlessly as a milquetoast liberal named Rose, then that is what she is. TychoCelchuuu posted:This is almost 100% correct. The way I'd put it is that the meaning of the film is "woke liberals are bad because they don't believe the conspiracy in the movie is an apt metaphor." If you don't like that criticism, fine, but I think it's a perfectly good criticism. Obviously there's no conspiracy to literally replace black people with white people by scooping out brains, but that's a metaphor for stuff that does happen, and the movie is arguing that the stuff that happens is done in large part by woke white liberals. This falls apart at the point where you must explain how the brain transplant conspiracy is a metaphor for stuff that happens. Like, with specificity. Not just 'a bad thing.' SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Apr 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
So what is the proper and healthy Marxist approach to interior design
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This falls apart at the point where you must explain how the brain transplant conspiracy is a metaphor for stuff that happens. Like, with specificity. Not just 'a bad thing.' We've already pretty much covered the white characters. There are the specific ones, like Root, who is colorblind but complicit with horrific acts; Rose, who is the woke ally but actually bad after all; the brother, who is actively practicing racist violence but tolerated by his family because he's family and because it serves their interests; the dad, who thinks he's in the clear because he loves Obama even when he himself is doing awful stuff. There are also the white masses, who see themselves as in the clear with respect to this whole process because they do it out of admiration (for muscles, for the size of one's dick, for the trendiness of one's skin color). In their view, they're doing a favor, because by scooping out the black brain (the part that's not good) but keeping the black body (the part that is good), they help both people reach their full potential. Black people have potential, but only physically, culturally, etc. - not as individuals in control of their own lives. What they need to unlock their potential is some white people in charge. So, it's a metaphor for why it's okay for white liberals to be in charge of black people, even if you can ostensibly point to "bad effects" (like brain scooping out, metaphorically, or all the poo poo that actually goes on in America, actually) of white liberal rule. Why is it okay? Well, because it's not like black people can be in charge of their own lives. Their skills lie elsewhere. But of course they have many skills - it's not like we're being racist or anything. We think black people are better in lots of categories! We're just helping them reach their full potential. So, that's how the metaphor works for them. The metaphor also works for Chris and the other victims. They are trapped in the sunken place. The sunken place is marginalization and an inability to change things even though you know exactly what's wrong and can see it happening. You have a premonition that it is coming up, but when you actually end up marginalized you're surprised (Chris does not want to get hypnotized, but all of a sudden, it's happened, and he's in the sunken place.) We could go on and on about the metaphor, but that's only tangentially related to the main point, because we're trying to figure out a different metaphor, the brain transplant one. The metaphor there is permanently being trapped in the sunken place. That is, permanent marginalization. I could write out a long explanation here, but if you can't really understand why the idea of black people being permanently marginalized could even conceivably be a criticism that a film could make of white liberalism, I'm afraid I don't know what to say. There's another aspect of the metaphor, too. In addition to marginalization, there's quite a bit of violence, displacement, etc. The victims are kidnapped, violently assaulted, experimented on without their permission, never get to see their families again, etc. If you don't think any of that can be a good metaphor for what actually happens to black people in America, then, again, I'm afraid I'm not super sure what to say here. Also, Max Rockatansky for sure hates Jews. It's all there on the screen man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:So what is the proper and healthy Marxist approach to interior design To perform an ideological critique of it, as people have been doing. TychoCelchuuu posted:So, that's how the metaphor works for them. Your writing is incredibly vague. White liberals are "actually bad", "complicit in horrific acts", "doing awful stuff", etc. They have "interests" -but It's unclear what any of this means, despite the vague allusions to abduction and medical experimentation. The more lucid statement that "the sunken place is marginalization" was copied directly from Peele's twitter, without elaboration. ("I don't know what to say.") Your other lucid statement, that the relationship between father and son represents a liberal tolerance for hate crime, was copied from me - specifically my example of a hypothetical crappy argument. Without elaboration. ("Again, I'm afraid I'm not super sure what to say here.") You have made only one specific claim: that white liberals "[view] the black brain as the part that's not good" (???) and, consequently, strive to control blacks like drones. What real-world phenomenon are you referring to here?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2017 09:36
|
|