Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Part#: Some High Number +3

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Chopping Mall. Great title, though it's a bit of a misnomer. Should really be Laser Mall. More killer mall security robots than Forrest Gump, so that was a big plus for me. If the title appeals to you it delivers exactly what you want. Unless you want chopping. Again, no actual chopping.

Haven't seen this in 30 years, but it's kind of cult. I reviewed Wynorski's The Return of Swamp Thing a few weeks ago and I just want to point out again that the guy went on to do unnamable stuff under a bunch of different nicknames... The Hills Have Thighs, The Devil Wears Nada, Cleavagefield, all from that director.

 

[kihei]

Reminds me of other American classics: The Breast Years of Our Lives; Mutiny on the Boobie; Witness for the Prostitution; and From Here to Paternity

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Reminds me of other American classics: The Breast Years of Our Lives; Mutiny on the Boobie; Witness for the Prostitution; and From Here to Paternity

But nothing will top Henry Fondlea's performance in 12 Bangry Men.

 

[Osprey]

Personally, I find whether or not the creators of Forrest Gump are diehard lefties or actively speak out against the ideas that the movie is criticised for to be entirely irrelevent.

It seems relevant when the film is being called propaganda, especially right-wing propaganda.

Whether they intended it or not, they created a movie that either directly or inadvertently communicates really disgustingly bad values and ideas (that happen to match the bad values and principles that conservatism can have, and under the same disingenuously shlocky, manipulative, and sentimental guise that you frequently see too, for that matter) and that paints a grossly unfair and one-sided picture in a heavy-handed and on-the-nose way. I mean, it's not even like these things feel all that subtle or ambiguous-- That seems like a pretty clear, reasonable, and unshakeable reading of it to me (I'm not even the type who swims in politics-- it just reeks of it). Once something has been created, it's entirely out the creator's hand-- They can't micromanage what the meaning is, and what was intended becomes largely irrelevant to what it actually says.

My best interpretation of it is that it's misguided, irresponsible, and unfortunately written/messaged to all hell, to a degree that makes it one of the movies that I have the greatest distaste for. Conceding that it's well intentioned would really only transform immoral propaganda into laughably wrong-headed cringe, which isn't much better.

That could describe a lot of movies. Imagine being a conservative .

 

[Shareefruck]

It seems relevant when the film is being called propaganda, especially right-wing propaganda.



That could describe a lot of movies. Imagine being a conservative .

Anyone can come out and correct me if I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt that anyone who has a problem with Forrest Gump does so specifically because they're suspicious that it is a LITERAL and deliberate attempt at propaganda on the creator's part. The criticism is that it has that effect/messaging when logically read (whether directly/indirectly or intentionally/unintentionally), which makes all the difference in how it should be received and appreciated. The creator's intentions are irrelevant to that (in the same way that David Chase coming out and saying "he's not dead" wouldn't make the ending to The Sopranos any less ambiguous).

I'm pretty sure nobody here is otherwise satisfied by Forrest Gump as a movie but sees its creation as a sinister ploy that must actually be stopped or something.

While a lot of movies are guilty of similar things to varying degrees (and a lot of movies are bad, for that matter), what makes Forrest Gump particularly egregious to me is how high up on its high horse it gets/how preachily meaningful, life-affirming, and magical it tries to come across in contrast to how insultingly idiotic and wrong its message is. If it weren't for the former puffing it up that way, my impression of it would be much more muted.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Anyone can come out and correct me if I'm wrong, but I sincerely doubt that anyone who has a problem with Forrest Gump does so specifically because they're suspicious that it is a LITERAL and deliberate attempt at propaganda on the creator's part. The criticism is that it has that effect/messaging when logically read (whether directly/indirectly or intentionally/unintentionally), which makes all the difference in how it should be received and appreciated. The creator's intentions are irrelevant to that (in the same way that David Chase coming out and saying "he's not dead" wouldn't make the ending to The Sopranos any less ambiguous).

I'm pretty sure nobody here is otherwise satisfied by Forrest Gump as a movie but sees its creation as a sinister ploy that must actually be stopped or something.

While a lot of movies are guilty of similar things to varying degrees (and a lot of movies are bad, for that matter), what makes Forrest Gump particularly egregious to me is how high up on its high horse it gets/how preachily meaningful, life-affirming, and magical it tries to come across in contrast to how insultingly idiotic and wrong its message is. If it weren't for the former puffing it up that way, my impression of it would be much more muted.

Again, not a fan of the film, and don't care about any political (or apolitical content in it). I've seen it once, probably in theater, didn't care for it.

But, again, there's a few things in here that don't work for me. You say you don't think the intention of the authors are relevant to the actual result. 100% agree with that, already said it. You also add that "its message" is "insultingly idiotic and wrong". Now, the idea of message implies an intent, and the film itself doesn't have one. The idea of being wrong implies somewhat of a moral compass that would apply to art, and I can't agree to that either.

You could say that there's an intent behind Triumph of the Will, but that would be the director's intent. That intent could be considered wrong. Can the film be considered wrong? As I said, didactic works tend to stray away from any artistic value, so a didactic discourse could certainly be considered wrong because it is a clear vehicule for a message. In my understanding, art is not carrying a strict meaning, it is an invitation into readings. Thinking of an artwork as wrong is what gets some societies to burn books. Is Lolita wrong? Is ReGOREgitated Sacrifice wrong? Cannibal Holocaust?

If you answer me that the medium is the message, I'll have to agree, in parts. Commercial films have normalizing (and thus conservative) effects they can't really escape. At that, Forrest Gump is certainly guilty, but not really any more so than Fight Club is.

 

[Osprey]

While a lot of movies are guilty of similar things to varying degrees (and a lot of movies are bad, for that matter), what makes Forrest Gump particularly egregious to me is how high up on its high horse it gets/how preachily meaningful, life-affirming, and magical it tries to come across in contrast to how insultingly idiotic and wrong its message is. If it weren't for the former puffing it up that way, my impression of it would be much more muted.

It definitely tries hard to be meaningful, life-affirming and magical, but "how insultingly idiotic and wrong its message is" is just your opinion (and a minority one at that). The movie is a moral tale and not everyone is going to agree with those morals, which is perfectly understandable, but suggesting that they're wrong and your morals are superior seems hardly different than one of the things (a high-horse preachiness) that you're criticizing the movie for.

 

[Byron Bitz]

Last movie I watched was Terminator 2: Judgement Day. I give it a 9 out of 10 I think it’s one of the all time greatest action films James Cameron is a master.

 

[Shareefruck]

Again, not a fan of the film, and don't care about any political (or apolitical content in it). I've seen it once, probably in theater, didn't care for it.

But, again, there's a few things in here that don't work for me. You say you don't think the intention of the authors are relevant to the actual result. 100% agree with that, already said it. You also add that "its message" is "insultingly idiotic and wrong". Now, the idea of message implies an intent, and the film itself doesn't have one. The idea of being wrong implies somewhat of a moral compass that would apply to art, and I can't agree to that either.

You could say that there's an intent behind Triumph of the Will, but that would be the director's intent. That intent could be considered wrong. Can the film be considered wrong? As I said, didactic works tend to stray away from any artistic value, so a didactic discourse could certainly be considered wrong because it is a clear vehicule for a message. In my understanding, art is not carrying a strict meaning, it is an invitation into readings. Thinking of an artwork as wrong is what gets some societies to burn books. Is Lolita wrong? Is ReGOREgitated Sacrifice wrong? Cannibal Holocaust?

If you answer me that the medium is the message, I'll have to agree, in parts. Commercial films have normalizing (and thus conservative) effects they can't really escape. At that, Forrest Gump is certainly guilty, but not really any more so than Fight Club is.

I fundamentally don't agree that calling it the film's "message" necessarily does imply its intent. If you tell someone "I think what you're saying sends the wrong message", that's not an accusation of a person's motives, that's an accusation of what their choice of words natural conveys regardless of what they intended. I'm using it the same way here.

I'm not sure I follow why a moral standard can't be applied to what art conveys-- you might have to dumb that down for me, because I'm not as well versed on these films. Certainly presenting something that happens to be immoral is different than arguing in favor of something immoral, and I think that Forrest Gump is guilty of having a narrative that inadvertently argues questionable morals, whereas I've never gotten the impression that Fight Club's narrative does (even though it depicts them-- in fact, doesn't the movie actively imply that what the protagonist is doing is wrong?).

That does come down to which interpretations you find logical/compelling and which ones you don't, which not everyone is going to agree on, but I don't think there's any way around that one.

 

[Shareefruck]

It definitely tries hard to be meaningful, life-affirming and magical, but "how insultingly idiotic and wrong its message is" is just your opinion (and a minority one at that). The movie is a moral tale and not everyone is going to agree with those morals, which is perfectly understandable, but suggesting that they're wrong and your morals are superior seems hardly different than one of the things (a high-horse preachiness) that you're criticizing the movie for.

Regarding the "insultingly idiotic and wrong" part, I did phrase that as just my opinion, though. People can disagree on what's right or wrong about something without the expression automatically being guilty of high-horse preachiness-- High-horse preachiness refers to the delivery, not the value judgement itself merely existing (which, as I said, I would have less of a problem with in isolation). I never suggested anything dismissive about anyone who disagrees with me on whether the message itself is wrong-- you put those words in my mouth-- All I did was assert my opinion to illustrate what makes the movie personally more annoying and harder to ignore for me.

You essentially are agreeing with me that the delivery tries hard to be meaningful life-affirming, and magical (aka heavy-handed and preachy). I don't see how I'm guilty of THAT same thing at all. I haven't been trying to theatrically inspire and motivate people into also thinking that the message is wrong (in fact, I don't think I've even begun to persuasively argue why I think it's wrong to begin with-- that aspect has barely even been part of the discussion), so this suggestion that I'm being a hypocrite about that seems pretty baseless to me.

Edit: The only thing I've said in this discussion that can even remotely be considered preachy would be my earlier insistence that intentions are irrelevant to a film's message (because at least with that, I actually AM actively making an argument which attempts to be compelling to others). But even then, that's still numerous steps down from the degree of preachiness that I said I found particularly egregious, which is the aggressive campaigning of this argument by manipulatively appealing to emotion, sentiment, and wonder.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I fundamentally don't agree that calling it the film's "message" necessarily does imply its intent. If you tell someone "I think what you're saying sends the wrong message", that's not an accusation of a person's motives, that's an accusation of what their choice of words natural conveys regardless of what they intended. I'm using it the same way here.

I'm not sure I follow why a moral standard can't be applied to what art conveys-- you might have to dumb that down for me. Certainly presenting something that happens to be immoral is different than arguing in favor of something immoral, and I think that Forrest Gump is guilty of having a narrative that inadvertently argues bad morals, whereas I've never gotten the impression that Fight Club's narrative does (even though it depicts them-- in fact, doesn't the movie actively imply that what the protagonist is doing is wrong?).

That does come down to which interpretations you find logical/compelling and which ones you don't, which not everyone is going to agree on. I don't think there's any way around that one.

Interesting example and play on words, but again, if you say the words send the wrong message, it is still implying that there's an intent to the message, with baddly chosen words to carry it. As I said, IMO the intent doesn't affect the result and should not be considered in reading the work, so of course the result could be read as the opposite of the intent.

As for a film that would be arguing bad morals, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's the discourse of censors, not of art aficionados. Again, in my understanding, art is not conveying a message or a single meaning. Many readings are possible, and saying that the message is this or that (or worse, wrong) is denying all other possible readings.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Reminds me of other American classics: The Breast Years of Our Lives; Mutiny on the Boobie; Witness for the Prostitution; and From Here to Paternity

The last few pages have me confused as hell...

So you hated Forrest Gump, but liked Forrest Hump?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

The last few pages have me confused as hell...

So you hated Forrest Gump, but liked Forrest Hump?

I had to go see if that was a real movie,... and yes!!

I'm not of those who said they hated Forrest Gump, but yeah, I'd watch that parody before anything with Tom Hanks in it.

 

[kihei]

Interesting example and play on words, but again, if you say the words send the wrong message, it is still implying that there's an intent to the message, with baddly chosen words to carry it. As I said, IMO the intent doesn't affect the result and should not be considered in reading the work, so of course the result could be read as the opposite of the intent.

As for a film that would be arguing bad morals, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's the discourse of censors, not of art aficionados. Again, in my understanding, art is not conveying a message or a single meaning. Many readings are possible, and saying that the message is this or that (or worse, wrong) is denying all other possible readings.

You wouldn't say that some works of art or commerce can't be morally reprehensible, though, are you? I personally wouldn't put it that the movie is "arguing bad morals" as I am not sure what you mean by that, but I would say without any hesitation that Forrest Gump on the whole is a morally reprehensible movie.

 

[Shareefruck]

Interesting example and play on words, but again, if you say the words send the wrong message, it is still implying that there's an intent to the message, with baddly chosen words to carry it. As I said, IMO the intent doesn't affect the result and should not be considered in reading the work, so of course the result could be read as the opposite of the intent.

As for a film that would be arguing bad morals, that's exactly what I'm saying. That's the discourse of censors, not of art aficionados. Again, in my understanding, art is not conveying a message or a single meaning. Many readings are possible, and saying that the message is this or that (or worse, wrong) is denying all other possible readings.

You've lost me. How is saying that words would be interpreted a certain way (separate from what is intended) still an implication of intent?

Regarding the second point, while I agree that art may have limitless interpretations depending on what it leaves up in the air, I wouldn't agree that every piece of art necessarily does by definition or that every interpretation is by definition equally valid or appreciable. The rules of comprehension and logic can still restrict what possibilities one can reasonably accept, IMO. Some works also just come across as more open and nuanced than others.

On top of that, even if this were hypothetically the defacto creed of art aficionados, I don't think that I, as a person, would want to so absolutely align myself as only being concerned with being an art aficionado anyways (especially if what you're saying is the case). There are other factors which exist that would factor into my value judgements as well, and morals could very well be one of them. If you're asking for a distinction to be made that Forrest Gump's messaging is not an example of artistic compromise but is an example of moral compromise, I could happily go along with that, but that doesn't really change what I've been arguing, I don't think.

 

[kihei]

The last few pages have me confused as hell...

So you hated Forrest Gump, but liked Forrest Hump?

Precisely.

 

[Osprey]

Regarding the "insultingly idiotic and wrong" part, I did phrase that as just my opinion, though. People can disagree on what's right or wrong about something without the expression automatically being guilty of high-horse preachiness-- High-horse preachiness refers to the delivery, not the value judgement itself merely existing (which, as I said, I would have less of a problem with in isolation). I never suggested anything dismissive about anyone who disagrees with me on whether the message itself is wrong-- you put those words in my mouth-- All I did was assert my opinion on that to explain what I find egregious about it.

I agree, so what if the movie had simply and outright said that counter-culture values are "disgustingly bad," "insultingly idiotic," "wrong" and "immoral"? Would you have less of a problem with it and its preachiness then or more? I certainly would have more of a problem with it, since that type of delivery is far more explicit and judgmental than simply painting values in an unflattering light, perhaps unintentionally. There's a big difference between frowning on behavior (like Jenny's life choices) and using language like "disgusting," "idiotic" and "immoral" to demonize them.

You essentially are agreeing with me that the delivery tries hard to be meaningful life-affirming, and magical (aka heavy-handed and preachy). I don't see how I'm guilty of THAT same thing. I haven't been trying to theatrically inspire and motivate people into thinking that the message is wrong (in fact, I don't think I've even begun to persuasively argue why I think it's wrong to begin with), so this suggestion that I'm being a hypocrite about that seems pretty baseless to me.

Edit: The only thing that can perhaps be pinned on me in that regard is that I could be seen as somewhat "preachy" about whether or not the message being implied by the movie is a naturally valid reading (because I am actively making an argument for it that tries to be compelling). But even then, that's several steps down from the aggressive campaigning of this argument by appealing to emotion, sentiment, and wonder, like the movie does, which is what I have been saying makes it particularly egregious to me.

I think that you're aggressively campaigning for the movie making that argument more than the movie, itself, is. What message is it trying to "theatrically inspire and motivate people" into believing (besides a positive one of personal achievement, which I can't imagine anyone having a problem with)? It's just a good story, and the values that the characters have play a large role, but the filmmakers aren't necessarily trying to convince viewers to adopt those values, just like the filmmakers of Parasite aren't trying to motivate people to lie and steal to get ahead in life.

The film does lean heavily on emotion, sentiment and wonder, but not for the purpose of any message, IMO, except for maybe the positive one about achieving dreams. It's simply a highly sentimental film for the sake of being highly sentimental, which is certainly a valid criticism to make against it, but suggesting that it's sentimental to push an agenda seems like trying to read too deeply into a lighthearted, innocent film.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

You wouldn't say that some works of art or commerce can't be morally reprehensible, though, are you? I personally wouldn't put it that the movie is "arguing bad morals" as I am not sure what you mean by that, but I would say without any hesitation that Forrest Gump on the whole is a morally reprehensible movie.

English is not my first language, so I had to go to google dictionary to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding or injecting extra meaning in the word.

rep·re·hen·si·ble
/ˌreprəˈhensəb(ə)l/
adjective
deserving censure or condemnation.

Art? Reprehensible? Of course not. Where would you set the line between what you judge as deserving censure and what you'd allow others to censor?

List of books banned by governments - Wikipedia

Nabokov, D.H. Lawrence, Rushdie, Joyce, Miller, etc. All morally reprehensible authors? Censoring art is stupid (IMO). Thinking art should be registered/evaluated by moral standards is detrimental to all creation. Now, of course an artwork can be morally questionable - both meaning that you can consider it dishonest/dubious and, more importantly, that you can question it, get into a dialog with the work regarding what moral challenges it proposes. For example, my gf loves Friends, I find it really morally problematic with its whitewashing-hetero-normalizing-consumerist-reinforcement-and-forced-nipple-shots. But in the end, I think that this is exactly the only interesting thing about the show. Putting it side by side with Living Singles (they share a lot of storylines too) really gives both show a wider resonance.

(and oh, sidenote: I know you weren't saying it should be censored or banned, I'm just reacting to the wording)

"Arguing bad morals", I was just quoting Shareefruck.

You've lost me. How is saying that words would be interpreted a certain way (separate from what is intended) still an implication of intent?

You used the example of telling someone he might be sending the wrong message. That implies there was an intent, an intended message, that got lost in the medium. I was just saying that the idea of message carries with it the idea of an enunciator. It goes from one to another, with intent. Regarding a film through the lense of the intents of its makers can be interesting, but it does not define what the film actually does.

Regarding the second point, while I agree that art may have limitless interpretations depending on what it leaves up in the air, I wouldn't agree that every piece of art necessarily does by definition or that every interpretation is by definition equally valid or appreciable. The rules of comprehension and logic can still restrict what possibilities one can reasonably accept, IMO. Some works also just come across as more open and nuanced than others.

Oh I absolutely agree. A lot of people are plain morons, or just don't have the resources to really appreciate a given work. Interpretations are many, but are not equal. From the exhaustive and educated interpretation to the moronic one, there's thousands in between. But you can often have two interpretations that are just as articulated as they are conflicting. I really don't care about Forrest Gump, can't stress that enough, but reading all of you, I'm starting to think that it might be a much more interesting film that I initially thought. You've got a film with hippie sensibility that would use its representation of purety and innocence and rearrange it in ways that could be interpretated as a right-wing discourse? Now that's pretty interesting. Would I agree with that discourse? Of course not. Am I able to appreciate the mastery required for such manipulation? Absolutely. Riefenstahl is considered a great cineast. And again, can't stress it enough: do I think that Forrest Gump is a right-wing discourse? Nope. Do I think it can be interpretated as one? Absolutely. And the fact that it can, to me, only makes it a better film (not that I think it's a particularly interesting film, but I finally found a reason to watch it again sometimes, I like films with juice...).

 

[kihei]

^^^^
My original statement was: " some works of art or commerce". Or commerce. No way in the world would I call Forrest Gump a work of art. If I ever did, I pray a thousand ravens would pluck out my intestines and feed them to electric eels. Like most movies, Forresst Gump is a work of commerce (nothing inherently wrong with being a work of commerce at all, but in terms of what it can get away with, the bar is much, much lower than it is with art) with the supposed purpose of making money and, hopefully, giving pleasure. I'm sure that you can find several works of commerce that you find morally reprehensible. Propaganda films often fall into this category as do works of popular entertainments that demean women, pander to racist stereotypes, involve actual torture, and/or falsify history in particularly pernicious ways.

That being said, I do believe that works of art (which, to make clear once again Forrest Gump is not) can indeed be morally reprehensible. It is a rare circumstance, but art is not exempt by nature from ethical and moral scrutiny. Prime example in film is D.W. Griffiths Birth of a Nation, which was not just considered a work of art, but the greatest film of the silent era until people began to recoil at its representation and encouragement of the Ku Klux Klan. I certainly am not alone in considering that work morally reprehensible, and yet I cannot call it a mere work of commerce either. It didn't go from art to commerce just because people cottoned on to what it was depicting. In my value system, it remains on some significant level a work of art that is also morally reprehensible. I admit such works are relatively few and far between. Attack this position how you will--I might even agree with you.

But my point is no way in hell is Forrest Gump a work of art in any way, shape or form in my book, and I am certainly not the first to find it morally reprehensible.

Finer questions of aesthetics and morality I will let you and Shareefruck battle out. I got the feeling this could get into deep waters and I'm afraid of sharks.

Aside: A guy for whom English is a second language who loves all those maddeningly complex, bloody obtuse French theorists (on occasion, I would cheerfully strangle Foucault and Barthes in their sleep, not that I don't respect the value of their work, the tiny smidgen that I understand anyway): you are doing just fine as a writer of English, pal.

 

[Shareefruck]

^ I have no intention of getting into a big thing about the moral value of the message the movie's being accused of. I was only arguing the relationship between intentions and messaging as well as whether or not the message is in the movie. If a conservative sees the same message and finds it morally valid, so be it-- that's not consistent with my own personal views, but that's consistent with the actual point I'm making in this discussion.

I agree, so what if the movie had simply and outright said that counter-culture values are "disgustingly bad," "insultingly idiotic," "wrong" and "immoral"? Would you have less of a problem with it and its preachiness then or more? I certainly would have more of a problem with it, since that type of delivery is far more explicit and judgmental than simply painting values in an unflattering light, perhaps unintentionally. There's a big difference between frowning on behavior (like Jenny's life choices) and using language like "disgusting," "idiotic" and "immoral" to demonize them.



I think that you're aggressively campaigning for the movie making that argument more than the movie, itself, is. What message is it trying to "theatrically inspire and motivate people" into believing (besides a positive one of personal achievement, which I can't imagine anyone having a problem with)? It's just a good story, and the values that the characters have play a large role, but the filmmakers aren't necessarily trying to convince viewers to adopt those values, just like the filmmakers of Parasite aren't trying to motivate people to lie and steal to get ahead in life.

The film does lean heavily on emotion, sentiment and wonder, but not for the purpose of any message, IMO, except for maybe the positive one about achieving dreams. It's simply a highly sentimental film for the sake of being highly sentimental, which is certainly a valid criticism to make against it, but suggesting that it's sentimental to push an agenda seems like trying to read too deeply into a lighthearted, innocent film.

You could personally have a bigger issue with that, because there's a difference in severity, explicitness, in your view hyperbole, and how judgemental it is, but to me that would be an entirely different "fault" than the preachiness, manipulativeness, and heavy-handedness that I'm referring to. I feel like you're conflating the two because you view them both as negative and passing that off as hypocrisy.

Expressing that I find something disgusting, idiotic, and immoral is a blunt description of what I personally feel about it, it's not automatically a deliberate appeal to other people's emotions and sentimentality just because of how harsh and judgemental it is.

I've been saying that I would take the former over the latter because the latter bothers me more. For example, if one movie was explicitly and unreservedly about conservatism being better than liberalism and aggressively made that point in a particularly "mean" way, whereas the other movie only implied it, but painted convenient, one-sided, and emotionally charged anecdotes that seem to artificially push the viewer towards that implication, the latter would be more frustrating to me because of how much more preachy, sermon-like, underhanded, and manipulative I find that (again, I don't see how I've been guilty of that). If it's the other way around for you, that's essentially what I was getting at-- that "even this thing that alot of people would be more bothered by, actually bothers me much less than this other thing which really gets on my nerves."

You can disagree that the movie's presentation sends the message that we're arguing that it does, but if you, for the sake of argument, accept that premise at face value, you should be able to see how it would be inextricably tied with the positive message that perhaps the filmmakers were actually going for. The fact that one way of thinking and behaving is depicted as preferrable to the other is what's fueled by melodramatic appeals to emotion, sentiment, and wonder. It's not for the sake of itself, it's for the sake of allowing the message and lessons to be more persuasively felt (whichever message it is that you think the movie's narrative expresses).

 

[Shareefruck]

You used the example of telling someone he might be sending the wrong message. That implies there was an intent, an intended message, that got lost in the medium. I was just saying that the idea of message carries with it the idea of an enunciator. It goes from one to another, with intent. Regarding a film through the lense of the intents of its makers can be interesting, but it does not define what the film actually does.

Oh I absolutely agree. A lot of people are plain morons, or just don't have the resources to really appreciate a given work. Interpretations are many, but are not equal. From the exhaustive and educated interpretation to the moronic one, there's thousands in between. But you can often have two interpretations that are just as articulated as they are conflicting. I really don't care about Forrest Gump, can't stress that enough, but reading all of you, I'm starting to think that it might be a much more interesting film that I initially thought. You've got a film with hippie sensibility that would use its representation of purety and innocence and rearrange it in ways that could be interpretated as a right-wing discourse? Now that's pretty interesting. Would I agree with that discourse? Of course not. Am I able to appreciate the mastery required for such manipulation? Absolutely. Riefenstahl is considered a great cineast. And again, can't stress it enough: do I think that Forrest Gump is a right-wing discourse? Nope. Do I think it can be interpretated as one? Absolutely. And the fact that it can, to me, only makes it a better film (not that I think it's a particularly interesting film, but I finally found a reason to watch it again sometimes, I like films with juice...).

I'm basically using "message" and "interpretation" interchangeably. When someone says something, there are intended and unintended messages that can be read from it. In the case of a movie, which messages are intended doesn't really matter in terms of how valid they are (we agree on this part). I don't understand what you meant by "the idea of a message implies intent" or what that has to do with my arguments about unintended messages, though. Every saying has an intention (and a message that carries that intention), but not every message carried by the saying implies that (or any) intent, as far as I can see. Very confused about this whole exchange. (are you referring to some concept of unauthored intents or something?)

Also, I would agree and concede that ironically, what I dislike like about Forrest Gump makes it somewhat more artistically interesting and layered than it perhaps innocently tried to be. I'm definitely not such a pure art aficinado that I think that merit outweighs greater demerits that I would cast elsewhere, though.

 

[kihei]

Tremors (1990) Directed by Ron Underwood 7A

An oldie but still a goodie, Tremors must be the most good-natured horror movie ever made. Val (Kevin Bacon) and Earl (Fred Ward), two good-old-boy handymen, busy themselves with grubby odd jobs while bemoaning their fate and threatening to move away from the tiny desert community where they live. They aren't leaving much behind, only a general store, a couple of houses, and no real prospects of any kind. Before they can act on their new resolve strange things start to happen. On their way out of town, they meet a new girl who is doing geology research, and she tells them about some strange seismic activity in the area. Then they spot a guy they know up on an electricity tower who turns out to be dead from no apparent cause other than dehydration. Pretty soon, a few other victims come to bad ends. The culprits are giant worms with hydra-like mouths, aggressive creatures that will eat anything and have the ability to get smart real fast. Stuck without help or communication, Val and Earl and a handful of others have to figure out how to defeat these beasties before they all become food for them. Tremors has a nice easy-going humour that isn't exactly subtle but it is carried out with a certain panache by Bacon and Ward who have a laid-back chemistry. As well, the twists and turns are sometimes much more clever than I usually expect to get in a low budget monster movie, and there are some modest thrills to be had as well as a dollop of suspense to boot. The end result is an amiable, unpretentious movie that just wants to give you a good time and does.

--currently available on Netflix

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

My original statement was: " some works of art or commerce". Or commerce. No way in the world would I call Forrest Gump a work of art. If I ever did, I pray a thousand ravens would pluck out my intestines and feed them to electric eels. Like most movies, Forresst Gump is a work of commerce (nothing inherently wrong with being a work of commerce at all, but in terms of what it can get away with, the bar is much, much lower than it is with art) with the supposed purpose of making money and, hopefully, giving pleasure. I'm sure that you can find several works of commerce that you find morally reprehensible. Propaganda films often fall into this category as do works of popular entertainments that demean women, pander to racist stereotypes, involve actual torture, and/or falsify history in particularly pernicious ways.

That being said, I do believe that works of art (which, to make clear once again Forrest Gump is not) can indeed be morally reprehensible. It is a rare circumstance, but art is not exempt by nature from ethical and moral scrutiny. Prime example in film is D.W. Griffiths Birth of a Nation, which was not just considered a work of art, but the greatest film of the silent era until people began to recoil at its representation and encouragement of the Ku Klux Klan. I certainly am not alone in considering that work morally reprehensible, and yet I cannot call it a mere work of commerce either. It didn't go from art to commerce just because people cottoned on to what it was depicting. In my value system, it remains on some significant level a work of art that is also morally reprehensible. I admit such works are relatively few and far between. Attack this position how you will--I might even agree with you.

But my point is no way in hell is Forrest Gump a work of art in any way, shape or form in my book, and I am certainly not the first to find it morally reprehensible.

Finer questions of aesthetics and morality I will let you and Shareefruck battle out. I got the feeling this could get into deep waters and I'm afraid of sharks.

I understood what you meant by work of commerce, but to me that's not meaning much. Where would you trace the line? Just like the idea of reprensibility, you can't assume that you are right about these kind of classification, and by giving yourself the right to judge and decide, you give others the same right. Especially after agreeing that 1) interpretation belongs to the reader/spectator and that 2) the intent is not relevant to the result, this makes no sense. Of course, the intent behind making commercial films is making money, and of course it has consequences in the actual construction of the film, but the film still shouldn't be read through that intent. Film is art, to me anyway. The way and reasons you make films, I don't care much for. We had a discussion somewhere before about Cannibal Holocaust (damn, I never cared about the search engine here, but it's been 3 times this week!): of course, the way it was made is morally reprehensible - the film is not. The film is a damn fine work of art, a brilliant one (in my interpretation of it, at least). Monet was said to only paint for money and that he never cared much about painting. Does that make his works, works of commerce?

Aside: A guy for whom English is a second language who loves all those maddeningly complex, bloody obtuse French theorists (on occasion, I would cheerfully strangle Foucault and Barthes in their sleep, not that I don't respect the value of their work, the tiny smidgen that I understand anyway): you are doing just fine as a writer of English, pal.

Very sweet of you. In another life, I've been teaching in an English University (for 5 years). The accent never was really good, but my English used to be near perfect. Now, not so much. I find myself looking up for words constantly.

 

[kihei]

^^^^^^
I have nothing I want to add., I'm moving on. Cheers.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I'm basically using "message" and "interpretation" interchangeably. When someone says something, there are intended and unintended messages that can be read from it. In the case of a movie, which messages are intended doesn't really matter in terms of how valid they are (we agree on this part). I don't understand what you meant by "the idea of a message implies intent" or what that has to do with my arguments about unintended messages, though. Every saying has an intention (and a message that carries that intention), but not every message carried by the saying implies that (or any) intent, as far as I can see. Very confused about this whole exchange. (are you referring to some concept of unauthored intents or something?)

Also, I would agree and concede that ironically, what I dislike like about Forrest Gump makes it somewhat more artistically interesting and layered than it perhaps innocently tried to be. I'm definitely not such a pure art aficinado that I think that merit outweighs greater demerits that I would cast elsewhere, though.

The message is a construct that goes from A to B. A is responsible for the meaning of it (and will have to assume responsibility if the message is indeed judged reprehensible).

Interpretation is the reading of the construct. B is responsible for its meaning. Now my interpretation of the message can correspond to its intended meaning, or not. In communication, it is pretty important it does (and can lead to quiproquo). In art, it has no importance (well, in both our understanding of art).

Film is the construct (the medium is the message, if you want to read it that way. But if you do, the content of the film is of no great importance, film itself is the message - and there we could go on for another 12 pages here). The message doesn't have a message, it should have "a meaning". In effective communication, that meaning should be aligned with the intent that generated the message. In art, we're talking about signifiance - not "a meaning", but meaning (or meanings).

Hope that clarifies my position a little. Signifiance is a word I can't find a real equivalent to in English. Hirsch used significance and opposed it to meaning - his argumentation has interesting elements (significance being malleable depending on the reader's context and previous knowledge, but meaning being fixed in the intention of the author), but his own position seems malleable and it makes his work a little hard to refer to.