I almost made a joke about TC making One Insult After Another several posts back but I didn't think he'd appreciate it.
*** ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER *** (Leonardo DiCaprio, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)
13,769 Views |
306 Replies |
Last: 5 min ago by Richleau12
Cliff.Booth said:
It's just hard to compare those two movies. In Wolf of Wall Street, audience goes into it already knowing that greed and debauchery and fraud are bad things, then you watch a dude **** up his life by getting lost in it, and having to climb his way out. And that's it.
In One Battle, the bad guys are white dudes who want to enforce immigration policy and the bad concept is wanting to deport illegal immigrants, and the protagonists are people who fight against that. Their revolutionary activities get them into trouble, get some of them schwacked, but it is never called into question as the right thing to do. The good guys are Neo-Marxist revolutionaries, they're in an ends justify the means struggle against evil as they see it. Just because there is a nice little Dad-Daughter connection in there doesn't take away from what the movie is romanticizing.
"In One Battle, the bad guys are white dudes who want to enforce immigration policy and the bad concept is wanting to deport illegal immigrants, and the protagonists are people who fight against that."
This simply isn't an accurate statement.
First of all, the protagonists are Bob and Willa. That's it. The protagonists are NOT the revolutionaries, because there's a different between what the MOVIE finds "bad" and what the REVOLUTIONARIES find "bad." In no way, shape, or form does the movie endorse VIOLENT EXTREMISM against those wanting to deport illegal immigrants. In fact, it is CLEARLY against said violent extremism. To that point...
"Their revolutionary activities get them into trouble, get some of them schwacked, but it is never called into question as the right thing to do."
It is ABSOLUTELY called into question. PTA clearly shows how empty their rhetoric and actions are when Perfidia, the the most passionate of the bunch, cuts bait and runs at the first sign of something with REAL meaning/value - her daughter - entering her life. She then goes on to rat out the entire group and from there lives a life of misery and regret. Through these actions, PTA is not just calling into question, but obviously SHOWING, just how full of **** she was, and thus how "right" their cause was (which, again, is "not at all").
I just… I don't understand how you're not getting that.
"The good guys are Neo-Marxist revolutionaries, they're in an ends justify the means struggle against evil as they see it."
Once again… they're not the "good guys." This is just something you're saying/repeating, but doing so over and over again won't make it true. Yes, the revolutionaries see violence as the answer, but again... THE MOVIE CLEARLY DOESN'T.
Once again… Bob and Willa are the only "good guys." Because Bob chooses family over violent extremism and because Willa is an innocent teen who shouldn't have to suffer the sins of her father.
"Just because there is a nice little Dad-Daughter connection in there doesn't take away from what the movie is romanticizing."
It's not "a little connection." It's literally the central relationship of the movie, which the entire story hinges on. At this point now I know you're just being purposefully obtuse because to downplay this angle is blatantly arguing in bad faith. Because the entire focus of the second and third act is Bob trying to get his daughter back, never mind that the entire theme of the movie is exemplified through their relationship.
As for what the movie is "romanticizing," it's two things: 1) family over (violent) ideology, and 2) yes, protesting/standing-up-to-the man, but NOT through violent means. If you can't understand that distinction, and how much of a difference it makes, I don't know what else to tell you.
TCTTS said:
"Fighting against those enforcing immigration policies is made to look noble/cool…"
NO. IT'S. NOT.
Because they each ultimately get their comeuppance.
THAT is exactly what negates the noble/cool factor in the end.
A movie is not just its first act (where they *do* look noble/cool). A movie is THREE acts, the second and third of which they suffer the consequences of choosing the violent extremism of the first act.
That's the whole point!
Good Lord, how are you not getting this?
Again, would you complain that the depravity/fraud in the first half of The Wolf of Wall Street is made to look "noble/cool," when it's blatantly obvious that Scorsese spends the second half of the movie giving each and every character their comeuppance?
No.
So why do you keep doing it here?
This is, inarguably, a movie about choosing family above all. It features a POSITIVE message. Yet you refuse to admit as much because, for some insane reason, you find purpose/identity/satisfaction in perceived persecution and arguing in favor of your pre-established political biases on the internet.
Hey dude, can you tell me what happened to the Native American dude who killed everyone at the police outpost so Willa could escape?
You're arguing for some kind of weird formula that shows that despite the French 75 being shown as some jacobin-esque freedom fighters violently rebelling against a totally evil and depraved government; that it doesn't glorify their behavior.
It totally does and you have to be blind not to see it.
I'lll wait for the Cliff Notes on this thread
First of all, please use spoiler tags. Considering it's opening weekend, there are plenty of people reading this thread who haven't yet seen the movie.
As to your (spoiler-heavy) point, thematic morality isn't as clear-cut as "do something good" and you get to live. That's such a shallow way of understanding how storytelling works. The Native American character was a bad dude with a bad history who worked for bad people who finally made a noble decision in the end. Bob, on the other hand, was decades younger, and when first given a choice to continue his violent ways or raise a daughter he chose the latter. And even then, he still suffered for 16 years because of his past sins, living a life of drugs, alcohol, and paranoia. This isn't rocket science, dude. It's pretty simple.
As to your (spoiler-heavy) point, thematic morality isn't as clear-cut as "do something good" and you get to live. That's such a shallow way of understanding how storytelling works. The Native American character was a bad dude with a bad history who worked for bad people who finally made a noble decision in the end. Bob, on the other hand, was decades younger, and when first given a choice to continue his violent ways or raise a daughter he chose the latter. And even then, he still suffered for 16 years because of his past sins, living a life of drugs, alcohol, and paranoia. This isn't rocket science, dude. It's pretty simple.
TCTTS said:
First of all, please use spoiler tags. Considering it's opening weekend, there are plenty of people reading this thread who haven't yet seen the movie.
As to your (spoiler-heavy) point, thematic morality isn't as clear-cut as "do something good" and you get to live. That's such a shallow way of understanding how storytelling works. The Native American was a bad dude with a bad history who worked for bad people who finally made a noble decision in the end. Bob, on the other hand, was decades younger, and when first given a choice to continue his violent ways or raise a daughter he chose the latter. And even then, he still suffered for 16 years because of his past sins, living a life of drugs, alcohol, and paranoia. This isn't rocket science, dude. It's pretty simple.
It's extremely simple.
Holy ****
this thread
LMAO
some of the "Hollywood" guys or guy need to be a little more Hollywood. I'm 51 and I guarantee you I had more fun tonight.
incel losers. LMAO.
this thread
LMAO
some of the "Hollywood" guys or guy need to be a little more Hollywood. I'm 51 and I guarantee you I had more fun tonight.
incel losers. LMAO.
I'm currently working on a project with DiCaprio himself, something we're co-producing. I also literally went out in Hollywood last night (The Roosevelt) after the movie. So I'm all good in terms of "being a little more Hollywood." Today was a football-on-the-couch day, with a couple friends, and then when they left, arguing about a movie I'm starting to love more and more felt like a nice, chill thing to do. Glad you had fun tonight, though!
TCTTS said:
I'm currently working on a project with DiCaprio himself, something we're co-producing. I also literally went out in Hollywood last night (The Roosevelt) after the movie. So I'm all good in terms of "being a little more Hollywood." Today was a football-on-the-couch day, with a couple friends, and then when they left, arguing about a movie I'm starting to love more and more felt like a nice, chill thing to do. Glad you had fun tonight, though!
Get a real job
A real job?
So the company I own, and the career in which I'm currently getting paid - and paid well - to dream up stories, buy life rights and book/article rights from prominent publishers, make pitch decks, edit trailers, oversee writers, give endless notes, manage development teams, work with execs, agents, and movie stars on a daily basis, etc, etc, etc… none of that's "real," simply because you say so?
When, in reality, I get paid to do something I absolutely love, and work for no one other than myself.
I'm sorry, but I'd say that's about as real as it gets.
Btw, I'm still waiting on you to refute a single point of mine about this movie, with actual, cogent arguments, rather than the same, regurgitated, fingers-in-your-ears nonsense and dumbass insults.
So the company I own, and the career in which I'm currently getting paid - and paid well - to dream up stories, buy life rights and book/article rights from prominent publishers, make pitch decks, edit trailers, oversee writers, give endless notes, manage development teams, work with execs, agents, and movie stars on a daily basis, etc, etc, etc… none of that's "real," simply because you say so?
When, in reality, I get paid to do something I absolutely love, and work for no one other than myself.
I'm sorry, but I'd say that's about as real as it gets.
Btw, I'm still waiting on you to refute a single point of mine about this movie, with actual, cogent arguments, rather than the same, regurgitated, fingers-in-your-ears nonsense and dumbass insults.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Just want to point out that this movie's title is a perfect name for this thread...
Almost made this exact same post last night
I think a part of the problem is that TC assumes that the vast majority of the movie going public goes in to movies trying to parse the themes and motivations of the movie/characters and that just simply isn't the case.
You see this with any profession though, people generally with direct/intimate knowledge of a subject don't really think about how the vast majority of people consume or view their niche.
You see this with any profession though, people generally with direct/intimate knowledge of a subject don't really think about how the vast majority of people consume or view their niche.
A huge part of the job is attempting to guess what the audience is and isn't going understand. Trust me, I'm not at all ignorant to that.
I'm also not necessarily saying that *everyone* will or should understand this movie's theme's on first-pass.
Rather, some of the accusations in this thread - the most vocal ones, at least - claim that the movie is definitively pro-violent revolution, that the revolutionaries are definitively the "good guys"/protagonists, etc, etc. Basically, they're trying to argue that the movie is pro-woke violence and will thus inspire the crazed, woke masses to commit violent acts of murder and vandalism against the persecuted right.
And all I've been doing in return is simply refuting those claims with clear narrative examples and cogent thematic arguments to the contrary. At which point the specifics of my arguments either wouldn't or couldn't be argued, and instead a bunch of empty "Nuh-uh"s and "You're wrong"s and mocking LOLs were all they could muster. Basically, anything other than actual substance (though I will give Cliff props for finally engaging specifics).
Point is, the goalposts were eventually moved to "Okay, but audiences aren't going to understand any of that, therefore shame on any movie that leaves room open for nuance/misinterpretation, re: politics, culture wars, violence, etc." In other words, a ridiculous take that I could not disagree with more.
I'm also not necessarily saying that *everyone* will or should understand this movie's theme's on first-pass.
Rather, some of the accusations in this thread - the most vocal ones, at least - claim that the movie is definitively pro-violent revolution, that the revolutionaries are definitively the "good guys"/protagonists, etc, etc. Basically, they're trying to argue that the movie is pro-woke violence and will thus inspire the crazed, woke masses to commit violent acts of murder and vandalism against the persecuted right.
And all I've been doing in return is simply refuting those claims with clear narrative examples and cogent thematic arguments to the contrary. At which point the specifics of my arguments either wouldn't or couldn't be argued, and instead a bunch of empty "Nuh-uh"s and "You're wrong"s and mocking LOLs were all they could muster. Basically, anything other than actual substance (though I will give Cliff props for finally engaging specifics).
Point is, the goalposts were eventually moved to "Okay, but audiences aren't going to understand any of that, therefore shame on any movie that leaves room open for nuance/misinterpretation, re: politics, culture wars, violence, etc." In other words, a ridiculous take that I could not disagree with more.
Quo Vadis? said:
Hey dude, can you tell me what happened to the Native American dude who killed everyone at the police outpost so Willa could escape?
You're arguing for some kind of weird formula that shows that despite the French 75 being shown as some jacobin-esque freedom fighters violently rebelling against a totally evil and depraved government; that it doesn't glorify their behavior.
It totally does and you have to be blind not to see it.
For starters, it wasn't a police outpost. Also, the native, up to that point, was a contract killer who did the bidding of the authoritarian government people for years. He's supposed to be a lefty just because he chose to draw a line between killing any adult the govt goons wanted and not to kill a child/let a child be killed?
I truly wonder what movie you think you saw and what you wanted it to be instead.
TCTTS said:
A real job?
So the company I own, and the career in which I'm currently getting paid - and paid well - to dream up stories, buy life rights and book/article rights from prominent publishers, make pitch decks, edit trailers, oversee writers, give endless notes, manage development teams, work with execs, agents, and movie stars on a daily basis, etc, etc, etc… none of that's "real," simply because you say so?
When, in reality, I get paid to do something I absolutely love, and work for no one other than myself.
I'm sorry, but I'd say that's about as real as it gets.
Btw, I'm still waiting on you to refute a single point of mine about this movie, with actual, cogent arguments, rather than the same, regurgitated, fingers-in-your-ears nonsense and dumbass insults.
I can't do it, because you seem to live entirely inside of your head.
Congrats on the enormity of your success
Can you list the real jobs for future reference?
She was also punished thematically (if not narratively) and she is still lauded by the left. You're totally naive if you don't realize what this movie is romanticizing and why.
Rest in Power, Rest in Peace, Assata Shakur. 🕊️
— Chicago Teachers Union (@CTULocal1) September 27, 2025
Today we honor the life and legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a fierce writer, a revered elder of Black liberation, and a leader of freedom whose spirit continues to live in our struggle.
Assata refused to be silenced. She taught… pic.twitter.com/SsoIg7MU8w
Sea Speed said:
I think a part of the problem is that TC assumes that the vast majority of the movie going public goes in to movies trying to parse the themes and motivations of the movie/characters and that just simply isn't the case.
You see this with any profession though, people generally with direct/intimate knowledge of a subject don't really think about how the vast majority of people consume or view their niche.
this attitude is why so much modern writing is bad when it comes to trying to have any level of subtlety.
..but if you are right, then what should the writer do? condescend to their audience by spoon feeding them like I complained about earlier in the thread?
or, make sure on the surface level its fun amd seamlessly weave in the themes and currents for those of us who are more literary minded and like to debate the undertones of the movie?
I'm more inclined to see it BECAUSE people are arguing about what the message is
I'm not offering solutions, just pointing out that most people are ******ed.
Cliff.Booth said:
She was also punished thematically (if not narratively) and she is still lauded by the left. You're totally naive if you don't realize what this movie is romanticizing and why.Rest in Power, Rest in Peace, Assata Shakur. 🕊️
— Chicago Teachers Union (@CTULocal1) September 27, 2025
Today we honor the life and legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a fierce writer, a revered elder of Black liberation, and a leader of freedom whose spirit continues to live in our struggle.
Assata refused to be silenced. She taught… pic.twitter.com/SsoIg7MU8w
So because the *checks notes* Chicago Teachers Union is celebrating Assata Shakur (whom the character of Perfidia is loosely based on), you're trying to equate that celebration to PTA and Hollywood or whatever as somehow doing the same? Even though PTA hasn't and they're not related in any way?
Regardless, how do you not see how desperate that plays? How do you not realize how that only proves how insanely hard you're trying to fit this movie into the ridiculously stubborn argument you already had inside your head and refuse to budge from? I'm honestly kind of shocked at how blatantly you need your narrative to be true, despite all evidence to the contrary, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
As to your endlessly-repeated "romanticizing" point, once again, why do you REFUSE to acknowledge that the only "romanticizing" happens in the first act? And that, from there, PTA unequivocally shows how corrosive and how full-of-**** Perfidia's violent ideology was? You just keep making this "romanticizing" point without acknowledging that THE REST OF THE MOVIE COMPLETELY DISAVOWS IT by revealing Perfidia to be a rat who doesn't even have the humanity to raise her own daughter. PTA literally shows her as abandoning everything she stands for at the first sign of something real and good. Yet you KEEP ignoring that monumentally crucial plot development, to the point where you don't even realize that by posting the Assata Shakurt tweet, you're only highlighting the vast disparity between the Chicago Teachers Union celebration and what PTA is CLEARLY saying about the character based on Shakurt, thus completely disproving your argument.
I mean... I just cannot believe you're really that dense.
double aught said:
Can you list the real jobs for future reference?
‘ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER’ in IMAX 70mm. pic.twitter.com/wl5jXXs4Nu
— A Shot (@ashotmagazine) September 28, 2025
He’s a former military interrogator. Not an actor. https://t.co/TYu5GdvRyd
— BenDavid Grabinski (@bdgrabinski) September 28, 2025
Paul Thomas Anderson on the road sequence (an instant all-timer) from #OneBattleAfterAnother. https://t.co/Q3gzQSflCD pic.twitter.com/Yuew5x0xhN
— Courtney Howard (@Lulamaybelle) September 28, 2025
In a period of increasing leftist terrorism, maybe, just maybe, make it very clear that political violence isn't glorious or cool, that wanting secure borders and documented immigrants does not make you racist or fascist. I guess the audience should walk away thinking, don't rat out your cell no matter what? In what way would that movie possibly de-radicalize people already committed to political violence? Based on the movie I saw I really don't get how it did anything but romanticize being a radical. I wish Bob would have had a moment like Derek in American History X where he realizes that he's bought into some bull**** and is surrounded by lunatics. He should have set Willa down and told her that he and her mom got brainwashed and that he doesn't want her to make the same mistakes by thinking our country's issues will be solved by a Marxist revolution. Not sure that would win an Oscar, though.
"In a period of increasing leftist terrorism, maybe, just maybe, make it very clear that political violence isn't glorious or cool, that wanting secure borders and documented immigrants does not make you racist or fascist. I guess the audience should walk away thinking, don't rat out your cell no matter what? In what way would that movie possibly de-radicalize people already committed to political violence?"
You're holding this movie - and art in general - to a ridiculously high standard. First of all, it's not a movie's job to "de-radicalize" people. Movies don't exist to play end-all, be-all moral cop, and act as if human beings are nothing more than automatons who will do whatever the movie tells them to do or shows them to be "cool." Rather, movies are thematic explorations of morality and that's it.
To that end, as I've said dozens of times now, the takeaways should be family above all and extremism is bad and corrosive on both sides. Those two things are so clearly what the movie is trying to exemplify, yet you keep finding every possible excuse not to acknowledge them. Because they're not hit-the-audience-over-the-head obvious, you somehow think those point aren't valid. When my response is that the lack of obviousness is the key (as hinted at above and explained in more detail below).
"Based on the movie I saw I really don't get how it did anything but romanticize being a radical."
Here you go - somehow, yet again - bringing up the whole "romanticize" thing without acknowledging the rest of the movie, and how PTA clearly shows, through Perfidia, that her extremism is corrosive and bankrupt. This is inarguable, yet you continue to ignore it altogether, over and over and over again.
"I wish Bob would have had a moment like Derek in American History X where he realizes that he's bought into some bull**** and is surrounded by lunatics. He should have set Willa down and told her that he and her mom got brainwashed and that he doesn't want her to make the same mistakes by thinking our country's issues will be solved by a Marxist revolution. Not sure that would win an Oscar, though."
It wouldn't win an Oscar not because of the messaging, but because what you just described is rote as hell. Summarizing the movie's theme through some blatant moral speech is one of the biggest movie sins there is. That's Screenwriting 101. Expanding on what I said earlier, movies are an experiential medium that don't exist to preach. Rather, because they are visual first and foremost, they exist to SHOW, through example and subtext, the message being explored. The second you put an actual sermon in the movie people will either reject it or roll their eyes at it. In other words, having Bob sit Willa down and explain the movie's message to her would utterly ruin the whole thing. Otherwise we go from active audience members EXPERIENCING the message to passive audience members being TOLD the message. See the difference?
It's just so telling me that how this tinge of conservative authoritarianism seeps through in your responses, where you think it's an authoritative figure's job to explicitly tell people what to do and how to act, void of all art and subtext, as if those people would actually listen in the first place. What you're not getting, though, is that the experience and the empathy are the keys. People don't respond to being told "Be this way!" They respond to having an experiential journey where they're not preached at, but rather get to walk in someone else's shoes for a couple of hours, and by the end hopefully arrive at the thought, by their own volition, "Hmmm, yeah, maybe being a violent extremist is pretty ****ed up. I think I'd rather go hug my kids right now."
Will everyone arrive at that conclusion? No.
Will some left-leaning radicals still take the wrong message? Absolutely.
But the movie isn't responsible for those people, nor it is some great sin to not explain to them, in explicit detail, what, exactly, they should do and who, exactly, they should be.
You're holding this movie - and art in general - to a ridiculously high standard. First of all, it's not a movie's job to "de-radicalize" people. Movies don't exist to play end-all, be-all moral cop, and act as if human beings are nothing more than automatons who will do whatever the movie tells them to do or shows them to be "cool." Rather, movies are thematic explorations of morality and that's it.
To that end, as I've said dozens of times now, the takeaways should be family above all and extremism is bad and corrosive on both sides. Those two things are so clearly what the movie is trying to exemplify, yet you keep finding every possible excuse not to acknowledge them. Because they're not hit-the-audience-over-the-head obvious, you somehow think those point aren't valid. When my response is that the lack of obviousness is the key (as hinted at above and explained in more detail below).
"Based on the movie I saw I really don't get how it did anything but romanticize being a radical."
Here you go - somehow, yet again - bringing up the whole "romanticize" thing without acknowledging the rest of the movie, and how PTA clearly shows, through Perfidia, that her extremism is corrosive and bankrupt. This is inarguable, yet you continue to ignore it altogether, over and over and over again.
"I wish Bob would have had a moment like Derek in American History X where he realizes that he's bought into some bull**** and is surrounded by lunatics. He should have set Willa down and told her that he and her mom got brainwashed and that he doesn't want her to make the same mistakes by thinking our country's issues will be solved by a Marxist revolution. Not sure that would win an Oscar, though."
It wouldn't win an Oscar not because of the messaging, but because what you just described is rote as hell. Summarizing the movie's theme through some blatant moral speech is one of the biggest movie sins there is. That's Screenwriting 101. Expanding on what I said earlier, movies are an experiential medium that don't exist to preach. Rather, because they are visual first and foremost, they exist to SHOW, through example and subtext, the message being explored. The second you put an actual sermon in the movie people will either reject it or roll their eyes at it. In other words, having Bob sit Willa down and explain the movie's message to her would utterly ruin the whole thing. Otherwise we go from active audience members EXPERIENCING the message to passive audience members being TOLD the message. See the difference?
It's just so telling me that how this tinge of conservative authoritarianism seeps through in your responses, where you think it's an authoritative figure's job to explicitly tell people what to do and how to act, void of all art and subtext, as if those people would actually listen in the first place. What you're not getting, though, is that the experience and the empathy are the keys. People don't respond to being told "Be this way!" They respond to having an experiential journey where they're not preached at, but rather get to walk in someone else's shoes for a couple of hours, and by the end hopefully arrive at the thought, by their own volition, "Hmmm, yeah, maybe being a violent extremist is pretty ****ed up. I think I'd rather go hug my kids right now."
Will everyone arrive at that conclusion? No.
Will some left-leaning radicals still take the wrong message? Absolutely.
But the movie isn't responsible for those people, nor it is some great sin to not explain to them, in explicit detail, what, exactly, they should do and who, exactly, they should be.
I didn't mean the movie should have literally hinged on the dad just having that conversation, but the only way not to romanticize leftist political violence is for it to be betrayed how it actually is -- deranged, organized by evil people and followed by very stupid or easily manipulated people. This movie glorified it. American History X was a far better movie because it showed the protagonist realizing that they had been misled and had, in turn, misled others. The message was that racism is dumb and Americans are better off trying to come together. OBAA offers nothing like that. But, that's because it wasn't written to throw Marxism in the gutter, where it belongs.
Cliff.Booth said:
I didn't mean the movie should have literally hinged on the dad just having that conversation, but the only way not to romanticize leftist political violence is for it to be betrayed how it actually is -- deranged, organized by evil people and followed by very stupid or easily manipulated people. This movie glorified it. American History X was a far better movie because it showed the protagonist realizing that they had been misled and had, in turn, misled others. The message was that racism is dumb and Americans are better off trying to come together. OBAA offers nothing like that. But, that's because it wasn't written to throw Marxism in the gutter, where it belongs.
This is EXACTLY what this movie does!
For the 400th time, you've repeated the same, bull**** "romanticize" line while simultaneously ignoring how PTA treats Perfidia in the wake of act one, when the answer - the very thing you keep complaining about - lies EXPLICITLY in her actions/fate.
At the end of the first act, when Perfidia cuts bait and runs at the first sign of something real and meaningful in her life - her daughter - DiCaprio's character CLEARLY realizes he was in the wrong, had been misled, had misled others, etc. The second he sees Perfidia bail, IN THAT MOMENT he chooses family over violent extremism. This is blatantly exemplified by his ACTIONS and not some stupid ****ing speech or soliloquy.
From there, PTA then underlines DiCaprio's correct choice/realization, in no uncertain terms, by having Perfidia rat everyone out and go on to live a life of misery and regret. Aka he's showing just how much DiCaprio's character made the right decision.
Truly, you cannot possibly be this ignorant. Yet you keep proving me wrong with every single post.
I've read what you've thought on that 10 times now and I get what you're saying, but it seems more like in this movie Perfidia's sin was being too devoted to a cause that Bob stills believes in and wants his daughter devoted to. Perfidia was selfish, but the movie didn't do anything to cast doubt on what they all were fighting for, or the lengths they would go to, because it is....drumroll...propaganda. Even with the great acting and awesome technical aspects, critics would pan this if it dared to make Neo-Marxism look like the cancer it is. It has to maintain the dangerous lie that policies you don't agree with are probably upheld and enforced by Lockjaw-like men whose lives are meaningless.
Hey, whaddya know, you're telling me what I do/don't believe again. Surprise, surprise. When, in reality, I'm ALL FOR walls, highly secured borders, and only documented immigrants being let through. But that doesn't fit your narrative, so you'll probably ignore it like everything else.
As for Bob, if he was still devoted to violent extremism... he would still be devoted to violent extremism. His actions in that regard speak volumes, though, yet you ignore them as well and just make up what *you* think he believes just like you made up what you think I believe. Except Bob hasn't done **** in 16 years except get drunk and high and raise his daughter and hide out in a cabin in the woods. There's also ZERO evidence that Bob wants his daughter devoted to violent extremism. Seeing as, in his paranoia, he's clearly taught her certain things and lets her train with Sensei Sergio for her protection, not for anything like proactive revolutionary extremism. This is made blatantly clear when in the very last scene of the movie he's STILL nervous about her joining any kind of protest whatsoever, no matter how innocuous.
But please, keep going about this so-called "propaganda" without any evidence or proof whatsoever, while continuing to misread every last thing about the movie in your mission to do nothing more than ***** and virtue signal about Neo-Marxism and conservatives being persecuted or whatever.
As for Bob, if he was still devoted to violent extremism... he would still be devoted to violent extremism. His actions in that regard speak volumes, though, yet you ignore them as well and just make up what *you* think he believes just like you made up what you think I believe. Except Bob hasn't done **** in 16 years except get drunk and high and raise his daughter and hide out in a cabin in the woods. There's also ZERO evidence that Bob wants his daughter devoted to violent extremism. Seeing as, in his paranoia, he's clearly taught her certain things and lets her train with Sensei Sergio for her protection, not for anything like proactive revolutionary extremism. This is made blatantly clear when in the very last scene of the movie he's STILL nervous about her joining any kind of protest whatsoever, no matter how innocuous.
But please, keep going about this so-called "propaganda" without any evidence or proof whatsoever, while continuing to misread every last thing about the movie in your mission to do nothing more than ***** and virtue signal about Neo-Marxism and conservatives being persecuted or whatever.
For the record, when I said that "you" believe in I meant the film speaking to their audience, not necessarily YOU. I should have used "they" there.
You won't be able to convince me that this movie didn't intend to a) prop up leftist revolutionary action as "the good fight" "right side of history" and b) suggest that those who want to protect our borders and enforce immigration laws are white supremacist thugs. It's that simple.
You won't be able to convince me that this movie didn't intend to a) prop up leftist revolutionary action as "the good fight" "right side of history" and b) suggest that those who want to protect our borders and enforce immigration laws are white supremacist thugs. It's that simple.
In other words, you're placing your rigid, stubborn, preconceived ideology above all else, letting it define and control you in the face of accepting a positive message that offers a more constructive path. It's almost as if the very movie we're discussing warned about that...
Well, if I'm stubbornly rigid in my beliefs that human lives have value, that America has been and should continue to be a great country, that like all countries we can and should expect people to come through a legal process, that our first responders and law enforcement (including ICE) are good men and women, that all forms of racism are vile, then yeah aspects of this movie aren't going to sit well with me. I'm OK being resolute in those things and not being gaslit by (really good) propaganda.
Yeah, even though the revolutionaries are, the movie itself isn't against any of those things, despite how desperately you need it to be. In fact, I would argue that the ways you continue to misconstrue it are just as malicious and divisive as you claim the movie is at times. But, hey, at least you got to vent and complain on the internet while letting everyone know good and noble and conservative you are!
It's almost like, people view art in different ways and stuff. Nothing I have said is malicious, and I've been far kinder to you than you are toward me continuously or anyone else you disagree with. As usual, you take stuff personally that isn't personal.
Featured Stories
See All
22:55
15h ago
4.3k
Offense in Review feat. Stephen McGee: Texas A&M 16, Auburn 10
by Billy Liucci
TexAgs Internship Program
by TexAgs
Recovery, rejuvenation and resurgence on display in A&M's secondary
by Olin Buchanan
14:04
21h ago
6.8k
SECond2noneAgs
Just bought 5 tickets in the visitor section for Saturday
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
35
beerad12man
Auburn pretty much hasn't scored an offensive TD in Kyle since 2019
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
26