Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
  • Post
  • Reply
KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Did Coogler's visual style get reigned in?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


BrianWilly posted:

I think that calling Nakia's worldview -- that of earnest international outreach, philanthropy, and activism through non-violent means -- some sort of "liberal order status quo" is ignoring the fact that...this is not our current status quo. We are not actually doing this! Can we look at Trump's America, or the UK, or any other dominant world power and say that they are building bridges instead of barriers, that they are providing the right resources that refugees and disaster victims require, that they are in fact enacting the sort of diligent foreign aid that dominant world powers should by all rights be capable of? That we are interacting with one another or even ourselves with anything other than veiled violence and sometimes direct violence? You think our current status quo reflects Nakia's goals? It doesn't. It reflects the "gently caress you, got mine" Wakanda of old. Sometimes it even reflects Killmonger's methods (because, as was pointed out, Killmonger literally learned it from us).

Philanthropy is hardly an absolute good: the practice shapes public policy. It's a democratic imperative for there to be a struggle between recipients and their benefactors.

sean10mm posted:

But seriously, reading the CD Marxist "vanguard" try to out-edgelord each other with how much blood they want to see flow in their imaginary revolution is genuinely comical. Do you really think you don't come across as privileged little shits who are about as convincingly proletarian as Paul Ryan at a county fair?

Violence is already happening, we just accept it as necessary.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:

The moral stance is that we should not abandon those in need, and yes it is up to us living in the real world to figure this poo poo out.

That kind of empty formalism is devoid of the relationships of social life, which is why the idea that audiences are supposed to fill in the blanks makes it even more inert.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Feb 24, 2018 around 13:29

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

the mistake people are making is thinking the ending is about you, the white oppressor, instead of the black children living under you.

Did this sound really profound in your head?

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

the point was bridging the gap, not taking down the man. for whatever reason, white people are making the movie about them and not about black people. we don't obsess over white people and oppression all the time, calm down. bp was basically family business the movie.

The entire concept of Wakanda is a fantasy about not being oppressed. It's pretty difficult to make a movie more about oppression than that.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

wakandans were never colonized or oppressed. that's the opposite of what wakanda was.

I'm not talking about the movie as if it's a documentary about a real place. Wakanda is a fantasy about not being oppressed, but the immediate enjoyment of its static reality is structured around and mediated by oppression. A fantasy is nothing more than what it blocks out.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

does blackness exist in wakanda? its really funny watching people trying to grapple with pan-african politics with absolutely no experience with it outside of a super hero movie..

Yes, they use ideas of blackness to disguise and hide from the rest of the world.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

that's a good answer. their concept of blackness is purely superficial but they do not possess a black identity. their identity is wakandan and then tribal.

That's only if you're viewing it as an actual place and not a work of fiction. The identity of being Wakandian is itself a determinate negation of oppression. Hence all of the hand wringing over how the movie should not be criticized because black people enjoy it.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

why can't you address the history of wakanda? was wakanda colonized?

Because it's all ancillary to its actual function in the narrative.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Phylodox posted:

I mean...I disagree with the premise that education and improvements to local infrastructure wonít have a measurable impact. The movie takes a fundamentally optimistic viewpoint to this.

We are all well aware that the film pushes a milquetoast liberal ideology. History tells us it will do gently caress all.

Wakanda is an interesting premise, but it has no interest in being specific or taking things to their logical conclusion. What is their economic system? Are they now functioning members of the capitalist global order? It's all intentionally left vague so that people will fill in whatever makes them comfortable.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2018 around 03:04

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Progress has always been a history of struggle, that will never change. It's cute that people here who reject liberalism are being painted as bloodthirsty cowards though, as if perpetuating liberalism doesn't result in violence.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Are you calling the Confederacy the revolutionaries? Revolutionaries change the status quo.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Phylodox posted:

Progress is struggle, so letís dive headfirst into horrible, bloody, violent revolution! Bring me the head of Barron Trump!

Like, seriously, thatís Killmongerís plan. And youíre advocating for it hard. I donít care if you reject liberalism or whatever, thatís not whatís making me think youíre a bloodthirsty coward, itís because youíre stridently defending the targeted murder of children.

It's absurd that this reactionary movie has warped your mind into thinking that those are the only two choices we have.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Phylodox posted:

I absolutely donít think there are only two choices, but the kind of revolution youíre shilling for removes all but one.

I haven't advocated for anything, but feel free to keep telling me that I'm thirsty for child blood.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Phylodox posted:

Then what are you advocating here? Because this is the discussion weíre having; open war versus more moderate means. You thumb your nose at outreach centres and education and the like as ineffectual liberal nonsense, so whatís your answer?

This is not the discussion we're having, that is the discussion the movie Black Panther is having. I'm sure climate catastrophe will wait while we make moderate progress though.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Phylodox posted:

I mean...those all present incredibly simple solutions, too. Most of them involve killing some figurehead, after which the evil empire crumbles. The real world is a lot more complicated. You're not gonna save it with some flashy revolution. If you kill Donald Trump, they don't just automatically flip the switch to "COMMUNISM". Is that how you wanted Black Panther to handle it? I'd much rather they presented change as a slow, gradual process involving hard work and perseverence.

The last 30 years have shown us that liberalism is a failed ideology. Clinton's lost is only a symptom of this. I know that your ideas makes you feel like you're being "realistic" and "rational", but you seem unwilling to recognize that that is how ideology functions, and that liberalism already has violence occurring, just the "normal" level so it doesn't even feel like it's happening.

History shows us that genuine progress happens when a political group has a compelling vision, not this moderate incrementalism. The idea that the Civil Rights movement (Which has been pointed out in this thread, was backed by the threat of violence) was widely popular is revisionist bullshit. They were wildly unpopular, even among some blacks, who thought they were crazy to stir the pot.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Mar 2, 2018 around 11:58

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Moon Atari posted:

What compelling vision does either killmonger or wakanda as lead by t'challa offer that could justify armed revolution?

Revolution might be nice but that doesn't mean you should just support all revolutions as a concept rather than with at least some critical assessment of their values. Just correctly identifying that the current order sucks isnt enough to make you the solution. Killmonger specifically does nothing to suggest he would lead positive revolutionary change, and plenty to suggest he would be very bad.

I said that progress is a history of struggle, which violence/the threat of violence can play a crucial role. This was to put into historical context all the cries for moderate incrementalism as the preeminent choice of moral adults who value human lives.

A criticism I received was that in rejecting liberalism, I am dismissing local activists/organizers who dedicate their lives to fighting similar causes. This is a misdirection: they are not all all similar due to their coordinates in social relations. Activists are limited by their scale/resources and are forced to take a more temperate vision. To hold a national organization to the same standards as local groups/individuals is more than a dismissal, it's an insult.

People have cited the actual victories won by liberalism: the first black president, gay marriage rights, and the legalization of marijuana. But in order to properly discern how victorious we are, we must again examine how they relate to the whole, in their proper context. The ruling class have decimated unions, cut working wages & benefits, and diverted national resources for their own uses to continually widen the historical gap in income inequality. It is inevitable that this will lead to the development of extreme ideologies that use violence that moderates are so opposed to, it just might be right wing violence.

People have said that the ending of Black Panther is only meant as a start, and that there's not enough time or it's too boring to get into the logistics, but they could have revealed their ideology or how their economy functions through Wakanda. We are left to examine their philanthropic approach because they have given little else to go on.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


The reading is that Kilmonger is actually a triple agent.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Yep, the reading is that Ross is acting out of self-determination but Kilmonger isn't. Like Bravestofthelamps pointed out, it's an attempt to get a progressive reading out of this deeply reactionary film.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Yes, we are aware that you've been hinting that the people criticizing this movie are racists.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

i agree about erik. his words were always about himself and his suffering. he was a young revolutionary with more training and bigger balls. he is what a lot of people imagine themselves to be, his death was a respectful repudiation of them. he was embodiment of trying to "dismantle the master's house using the master's tools."

nakia was revolutionary because she refused priviledge to help and did so on the front lines. she changed the system from the inside. but people lazily call that reactionary but the key difference is she refused her privilege. i'd like to see the woke shea butter types give up the internet and do ground work.

Again, we've gone back to the tactic of insulting personal individuals, because individual action is the only thing you perceive as important.

That interpretation of Lorde's quote to read Kilmonger as reactionary is absurd. Warfare is somehow the tool of the master? How is Nakia refusing her privilege a revolutionary act?

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Mar 13, 2018 around 17:55

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


temple posted:

nakia was woke twitter actually protesting instead of retweeting it.

So Kilmonger is a triple agent that stands for fraudulent internet marxists (Well known for being reactionaries).

Since the film Black Panther is not about oppression, what is Nakia's revolutionary act in opposition to?

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Isn't your take on the film that it's not about oppression? Who is Nakia taking a revolutionary act against?

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Timeless Appeal posted:

But where the film becomes subversive is how it tries to ensure that it doesn't fall into the good black/bad black narrative.

This is a common narrative?

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Timeless Appeal posted:

I think people complaining about Killmonger being watered down in some way are missing what makes him such a subversive character.

Killmonger's ideology isn't wrong. The problem with Killmonger is that he's too broken of a person to ever be an effective vessel for his message.

What you are identifying is precisely why a film about revolution is widely accepted and uncontroversial across the American political spectrum. Woke leftists and alt-righters both agree that it's a moral imperative that Kilmonger must die.

Which brings us to the really important question:

GORDON posted:

Since people are talking about the effect of Hydra post-WW2, and the reasons Killmonger had the ideas about oppression that he did, it could be argued, in the marvel universe, that Hydra purposely created the conditions that led to an oppressed African American community, which directly led to the king's brother attempting a coup, which ultimately created Killmonger.

Hail Hydra, indeed.

Kilmonger's revolt would clearly be the catalyst for reuniting the lover's quarrel from Civil War. But who would feel more guilty about violently repressing it, Team Iron Man or Team Captain America? I'm on Team Iron Man.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Mar 18, 2018 around 19:20

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


gohmak posted:

I agree with many of the criticisms of the political themes in the movie but detect subtle racism in some peoples dismissal of this film as being unexceptional. That is all.

What makes the film exceptional aside from the box office numbers?

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


I reject the conceit that this film wasn't made for white people considering that the exploitation of black pain by black faces is used to advocate the only sane and familiar choice of liberal reformist solutions. Criticism of this is somehow inherently racist because any black success is a success for the black monolith. And it's also why the third act falls apart.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Mar 31, 2018 around 12:59

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


On top of that, Wakanda should reveal itself and intervene for the practical purpose of self-preservation, lest another black radical be born who threatens their way of life. Any position to the left of liberals are painted as bloodthirsty for Trump's head, when that's clearly a projected desire.

Thanks for the recommendation for "Born in Flames", it sounds amazing.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Long live the king.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Farg posted:

Like I said, anything coming back in response is baseless, and is just writhing around in its own hypocrisy

The contortions you've gone through to avoid discussing the film are very impressive: a discussion about non-discussion for black blockbuster directors.

DeimosRising posted:

It's not exactly amazing, but it's legit as gently caress. Working Girls and Erotique are better but not as hardcore

Thanks, I'll keep these in mind.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Apr 1, 2018 around 03:28

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Didn't you hear? What black people have been missing is hope and Black Panther's success in the market is giving them that.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


It's nice that we have someone ITT to speak for all blacks. Very comforting.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


It's only natural at our current stage of society to perceive commodification as the definitive form of art's value. As I refresh boxofficemojo.com, I can feel Black Panther becoming more exceptional and society becoming more and more free.

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Inescapable Duck posted:

I think that while it's quite valid to bring up the bad, muddled and unfortunate politics and implications of the movie, it's still also worth acknowledging that marginalised people can take a positive message away from it regardless and accept that it might be a good thing in the long run. (if only because the bad stuff is something that everyone's exposed to anyway, it's nearly background noise in commercial art)

The problem is that people are being purposely vague when they talk about how important the film is. If it's the idea that it will make people feel good, then yes, that's the explicit function of an exploitative film. Will it result in a better life for the people who made the film and their families? Certainly. But when people start talking about society level changes without a material basis, they lose me.

In a less transient sense, what fades to the background in commercial consumption is what's important in an ideological critique.

gohmak posted:

Iíd say itís racism

So are black people who criticize the movie self-hating blacks?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

KVeezy3
Aug 18, 2005


Farg posted:

but the institution allowed for the corruption, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a corrupt institution can be so insidious as to allow otherwise good people to ignorantly remain within it and work to further its ends unknowingly? the message communicated is that no group, governmental or otherwise, is sacred or pure enough to be trusted with immense power, and that good people must be otherwise vigilant of bad actors at all times and be willing to oust them from power if found, violently if need be.

its a small scale indictment of the society the movie was made in, good people exist in western governments yet they work towards evil ends because we have not vigilantly protected these institutions from corruption. it is a call to action to root out the 'hyrda' in our own government. its a very heavy handed metaphor too, what with the villain plot being "bigger eviler drones", it is surprising how many people walk out with the opposite message.

This is a straightforward and correct reading of the film as right wing. Institutions and people are depicted as discrete ontological entities: things-in-themselves which can be examined separately from each other as they appear in their present state. This is necessary in order to delineate good/bad people/institutions in standard comic book morality. Justice is finding the unnatural evil and purging this otherness from the otherwise neutral system. If corporate malfeasance occurs, the solution is merely to purge it of the rogue individuals.

But there are no things-in-themselves in this manner, only particular abstractions. The film restricts these concepts to these particular abstractions so that it becomes entirely reasonable to keep the existing structures intact. So the people who do not want things to change, or fantasize about returning to a previous time, are the ones most ardent to insist how static and essential these things-in-themselves are. There is no examination of how institutions and people interrelate to form their respective ontologies.

KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2018 around 23:39

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply