StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Here's an off-beat entry for "reprehensible movies": Forrest Gump.

"But I loved that movie!" you might say. Well yes, I actually enjoyed it too. But when you think about it, it sends a wide array of deplorable messages. First and foremost, it embodies the right-wing ruralistic anti-intellectual belief that education and intelligence actually corrupt morality. In the movie, Forrest Gump embodies innocence, ignorance, and above all, he is not an intellectual. And yet, he is a wonderful human being, and all of the smarter people around him are invariably shown to be damaged neurotics, who are eventually improved by merely being around him and learning to accept his simple wisdom.

This anti-intellectual garbage lies at the heart of what's wrong with American politics today. I don't know if one can overstate just how harmful this attitude is. The fact that they included the "angry stupid hippie left-wing liberals who are actually more hateful than the noble soldiers" cliché is just icing on the cake, but even without it, the movie consistently pushes a message that intelligence and education actually corrupt the soul, rather than enlightening it.

The Weta Workshop concept artists and costume makes tried to steer away from African cultures when designing the Haradrim warriors, sourcing some of their inspiration from more obscure Pacific Island peoples, to give them a more unique look (but they still look Berber like). I agree that the siege of Minus Tirith is closely based on the Fall of Constantinople in AD 1453 (both are multiple walled cities, with Mordor standing in for the Ottoman Empire).

I don't think J.R.R Tolkien is quite as bad as Ian Fleming, what with Fleming's descriptions of the "Chigroe" henchmen in Dr. No. And although there are many contradictions, weren't the "foul" Orcs supposedly mutated/debased descendants of the "fair" Elves?

Darth Wong wrote:The fact that the extended cut of the film includes a scene where Faramir acknowledges their humanity hardly nullifies the accusation that the Men of Harad are a caricature of Africans. Oooh, they admit that the enemy is human!

It doesn't nullify it, of course. Still, a caricature or simplification meant just to signify a different culture isn't that bad, It would be reprehensible if their differing culture and ethcnicity was protrayed as the reason for their evilness.


As for Forrest Gump, I agree, and must add that anti-intellectual garbage is quite universal. I've had people give more credence to pseudo-mystical bullshit than actual hard data, just because it "felt right". That, and people hate being proven wrong.

Big Orange wrote:The Weta Workshop concept artists and costume makes tried to steer away from African cultures when designing the Haradrim warriors, sourcing some of their inspiration from more obscure Pacific Island peoples, to give them a more unique look (but they still look Berber like). I agree that the siege of Minus Tirith is closely based on the Fall of Constantinople in AD 1453 (both are multiple walled cities, with Mordor standing in for the Ottoman Empire).

There's only so much you can do without deviating too much from the source material, and since Tolkien consciously intended the source material to be a mythologized version of European history, well ...

I don't think J.R.R Tolkien is quite as bad as Ian Fleming, what with Fleming's descriptions of the "Chigroe" henchmen in Dr. No.

True enough; Dr. No is just horrendous that way.

And although there are many contradictions, weren't the "foul" Orcs supposedly mutated/debased descendants of the "fair" Elves?

That doesn't actually improve the situation at all, when you consider that Tolkien was writing around the time of the rise of Adolf Hitler's ideology about "lower races" being debased versions of fair and pure Aryan stock that were corrupted through inter-breeding over the millennia.

In all fairness, the book version of the numenoreans were also pretty big douchebags, and after Sauron dies Aragorn actually buries the hatchet with the men of the east. He also called Hitler's idealogy ridiculous, and stated that in his mind an orc was any being who lusted for carnage and death. Going by that definition someone like Richard "The Vampire" Chase (who murdered a pregnant women, an old man, and several children), Gilles de Rais (Serial killer who murdered young boys), or Vlad Tepes (a man legendary for his monstrous nature) could easily qualify as an orc in Tolkein's views.

Darth Wong wrote:

Balrog wrote:And? Is it really that shocking that someone creating a fictional culture samples from RL cultures? Unless you're trying to say that Tolkien, and by extension Jackson, basing the Haradrim in part on non-Europeans (Berbers, etc.) is meant to be a commentary on those RL groups. Which doesn't really mesh with his personal views or his writing in general.

Nice spin-doctoring. So a near-perfect parallel is just "sampling" now? Darker-skinned folk, riding elephants into battle, coming from the south, wearing tribal war paint ... all just "sampling", right? And the fact that every part just happens to fit ... well that means nothing to you, right? Just totally random "sampling", from an author who said up-front that it was supposed to be a mythology for western Europe ... *cough*bullshit*cough*

Nice strawman. I never said the sampling was random, it's clear that the influences for the Haradrim did come from real groups that lived in Africa/Middle East/etc. (with Weta being more divergent, what with basing theirs on Aztec and Oceanic tribes). They are, in a loose sense, the Arabs/Ottomans to Gondor's Constantinople. That was never denied. But you seem to take this as if they are meant to be commentary on those real life groups, that having the Haradrim fight for the evil guy is suppose to mean that Arabs and such are evil as well. Never mind that Tolkien disliked allegories to begin with, or that the Haradrim are never presented as being evil because of their differences, or even really represented as being evil as a race.

Darth Wong wrote:Here's an off-beat entry for "reprehensible movies": Forrest Gump.

"But I loved that movie!" you might say. Well yes, I actually enjoyed it too. But when you think about it, it sends a wide array of deplorable messages. First and foremost, it embodies the right-wing ruralistic anti-intellectual belief that education and intelligence actually corrupt morality. In the movie, Forrest Gump embodies innocence, ignorance, and above all, he is not an intellectual. And yet, he is a wonderful human being, and all of the smarter people around him are invariably shown to be damaged neurotics, who are eventually improved by merely being around him and learning to accept his simple wisdom.

This anti-intellectual garbage lies at the heart of what's wrong with American politics today. I don't know if one can overstate just how harmful this attitude is. The fact that they included the "angry stupid hippie left-wing liberals who are actually more hateful than the noble soldiers" cliché is just icing on the cake, but even without it, the movie consistently pushes a message that intelligence and education actually corrupt the soul, rather than enlightening it.

I always thought that between Forrest Gump, Rain Man, Regarding Henry, Nell and a couple more movies whose names escape me, the groundwork was being laid for George W. Bush. A decade of presenting retards and other mental defectives as good, pure, salt-of-the-earth folk made it that much easier for the Supreme Court to foist a sadistic retard on the republic.

Balrog wrote:Nice strawman. I never said the sampling was random, it's clear that the influences for the Haradrim did come from real groups that lived in Africa/Middle East/etc. (with Weta being more divergent, what with basing theirs on Aztec and Oceanic tribes). They are, in a loose sense, the Arabs/Ottomans to Gondor's Constantinople. That was never denied. But you seem to take this as if they are meant to be commentary on those real life groups, that having the Haradrim fight for the evil guy is suppose to mean that Arabs and such are evil as well. Never mind that Tolkien disliked allegories to begin with, or that the Haradrim are never presented as being evil because of their differences, or even really represented as being evil as a race.

Plus, even if they had, it's not like Harad's likely going to be that much worse than Africa anyway. It always seemed pretty clear to me that it was Sauron's influence that made them so cruel and vile (as it happens, a running motif of the films and books), not where they were from, the colour of their skin or anything like that.

If you think about it, the very idea of "evil races" popular in fantasy works like LotR is rooted in racist thinking, even if it doesn't target any real ethnic groups. Also, evil races are unrealistic. Any race social enough to form armies like the orcs has to have some kind of morality in order to keep the group cohesive.

Back to the Main Topic of Reprehensible Movies, with a side stop in WetaWorks...

"Meet The Feebles"

Vastatosaurus Rex wrote:If you think about it, the very idea of "evil races" popular in fantasy works like LotR is rooted in racist thinking, even if it doesn't target any real ethnic groups. Also, evil races are unrealistic. Any race social enough to form armies like the orcs has to have some kind of morality in order to keep the group cohesive.

I never read the books but I beleive it was only the power of Sauren (sp?) that kept them cohesive. Without him they just broke off into small groups right?

Given the fact that the world of Christendom thought the "pagan" (ie- non-Christian) world was being dominated by the Will of Satan, I really don't see how this "Will of Sauron" thing somehow makes everything OK.

Frankly, if you really want to try and explain everything away so that it's inoffensive, I'm sure you can find ways. However, if you were not inclined to do so out of affection for the source, and this were a totally original new story coming out just now, I'm sure people would say "Hey, what the fuck".

Darth Wong wrote:Given the fact that the world of Christendom thought the "pagan" (ie- non-Christian) world was being dominated by the Will of Satan, I really don't see how this "Will of Sauron" thing somehow makes everything OK.

Frankly, if you really want to try and explain everything away so that it's inoffensive, I'm sure you can find ways. However, if you were not inclined to do so out of affection for the source, and this were a totally original new story coming out just now, I'm sure people would say "Hey, what the fuck".

I have no idea what authors intent was with the racist shit and to be honest (the guy was in WW1 and wrote the trilogy in the 50's, though came up with the mythology during his entire adult life) I can easily believe that what was written are his actual views. However, if you choose to view it as what Tolkien claimed it was, then the inherent racism of the work fits well within an actual mythology. I mean point to any bronze and iron age work about other cultures and it's just as racist (maybe moreso) and fucked up as anything in the entire LoTR mythology. Christ, even "progressive" cultures viewed other races as subhuman in the mid and late 20th century.

Balrog wrote:Would it have been better for the desert-dwellers to be Nordic Vikings riding Direwolves? If we're talking about a quota system of there not being enough white villains in the films, recall that there were the men of Dunland similarly tricked into joining the bad guys by the evil White Wizard himself, who pretty much took up all of the second movie.

As far as the Orcs are concerned, their skin color varies greatly in the films, from green to grey to white, and the concept of evil, misshapen beings existed long before white Europeans developed notions of racism, much less had contact with other ethnicities.

Flagg wrote: The movie may have ditched the racist shit, but anyone who has read the book can tell you flat out that there are some pretty racist ideas in there. For instance, the Numenorians whose lifespans became reduced as they interbred with the "lesser races of men".

No, they became reduced when they pissed God off by worshiping Morgoth with human sacrifices. The Numenoreans started losing their normal lifespan long before the exodus and subsequent mingling with Middle-earth.

That's right, what made them less uber was when the started worshipping the wrong supernatural being.

LadyTevar wrote:Back to the Main Topic of Reprehensible Movies, with a side stop in WetaWorks...

"Meet The Feebles"

Same Director: Bad Taste, especially with the exploding sheep scene restored...

Flagg wrote:I have no idea what authors intent was with the racist shit and to be honest (the guy was in WW1 and wrote the trilogy in the 50's, though came up with the mythology during his entire adult life) I can easily believe that what was written are his actual views. However, if you choose to view it as what Tolkien claimed it was, then the inherent racism of the work fits well within an actual mythology. I mean point to any bronze and iron age work about other cultures and it's just as racist (maybe moreso) and fucked up as anything in the entire LoTR mythology. Christ, even "progressive" cultures viewed other races as subhuman in the mid and late 20th century.

Mind you, the nice thing about older mythologies is that you can alter them without fanboy backlash. "Troy" with Brad Pitt was a pretty serious reworking of the original mythology: enough that a lot of purists were angered by it. If you altered LOTR that much, people would go berserk.

That's right, what made them less uber was when the started worshipping the wrong supernatural being.

Don't forget the part about "the blood of Numenor" being "thin". Racial purity is such an enlightened concept, after all

Darth Wong wrote: Mind you, the nice thing about older mythologies is that you can alter them without fanboy backlash. "Troy" with Brad Pitt was a pretty serious reworking of the original mythology: enough that a lot of purists were angered by it. If you altered LOTR that much, people would go berserk.

Quite true. Though given how many other things the movies changed, one wonders how much they really cared about that...

Don't forget the part about "the blood of Numenor" being "thin". Racial purity is such an enlightened concept, after all

On the other hand, we have Faramir proudly marrying a non-Numenorean woman (Eowyn). Something, incidentally, that was cut from the film.

Really, this is a very old argument, and for every example of racism, sexism, etc in LotR there are counter-examples that can be made. Mind you, it wouldn't surprise me in the least for Tolkien to have been rather racist by today's standards. Probably almost everyone born at the turn of the century was. That doesn't make it okay, of course, but I doubt he's any worse than a lot of other pre-civil rights era authors who's works are nonetheless considered classics.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Really, this is a very old argument, and for every example of racism, sexism, etc in LotR there are counter-examples that can be made.

Nobody would do that with other films. If some film contains a seriously racist overtone, people usually don't triumphantly say "Ah, but half an hour later, it does something that's not racist!" As I said, people are bound and determined to cut LOTR a lot of slack that a less well-loved franchise would never get.

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, if you really want to try and explain everything away so that it's inoffensive, I'm sure you can find ways. However, if you were not inclined to do so out of affection for the source, and this were a totally original new story coming out just now, I'm sure people would say "Hey, what the fuck".

Just like people inclined to do so can find something offensive?

Look, it has nothing to do with affection or whatever bullshit you thought you picked up while reading my mind. I grew up on Bond movies, loved them, yet that still doesn't stop me from recognizing that You Only Live Twice is quite racist. I loved reading LotR as a kid, yet I still recognize that they are very long books, Tolkien went overboard on descriptions and random musical numbers, etc. A racist message, however, is not one of those criticisms. The worst you could say is that Tolkien was insensitive to the issue, and if he did write this story today I bet he'd include a brown-skinned good guy to appeal to modern sensibilities. But again, since you ignored it, just because a fictional culture is based in part on a real life one, does not automatically make it a commentary on that group.

Don't forget the part about "the blood of Numenor" being "thin". Racial purity is such an enlightened concept, after all

You speak from ignorance. What caused the Númenóreans' decline had nothing to do with losing their "racial purity." If you're going to cherry-pick, at least get the example right.

Flagg wrote:I have no idea what authors intent was with the racist shit

Then please, educate yourself.

That's right, what made them less uber was when the started worshipping the wrong supernatural being.

Are you dense? They were turned to worshiping Morgoth (someone who has, objectively, done evil things) with human sacrifices. This wasn't a case of them turning Wiccan and the non-existant Church of Eru Ilúvatar burning them at the stake. Shit, they didn't even worship him much in the first place.

The ethical evaluation of religious tolerance changes with things like human sacrifice and the actual existence of the gods being worshipped and general magical things. The LotR films don't contain any "serious" racist overtone, you have to intentionally read them into them and construct arguments from silence at best.

Balrog wrote: The worst you could say is that Tolkien was insensitive to the issue, and if he did write this story today I bet he'd include a brown-skinned good guy to appeal to modern sensibilities.

To be fair to Tolkien, he comes off much better on racial issues if things cut from the movie like the crucial help from the Woses, the fact that Sauron seduced the Numenoreans in the past, and the just and lasting peace Aragorn is able to forge with the Easterlings. In the books its clear that to the main characters the Easterlings and the Haradum are strange and exotic people from another land, but not an inherently evil people. The orcs, on the other hand, come across as nasty British thugs.

Darth Wong wrote:Here's an off-beat entry for "reprehensible movies": Forrest Gump.

"But I loved that movie!" you might say. Well yes, I actually enjoyed it too. But when you think about it, it sends a wide array of deplorable messages. First and foremost, it embodies the right-wing ruralistic anti-intellectual belief that education and intelligence actually corrupt morality. In the movie, Forrest Gump embodies innocence, ignorance, and above all, he is not an intellectual. And yet, he is a wonderful human being, and all of the smarter people around him are invariably shown to be damaged neurotics, who are eventually improved by merely being around him and learning to accept his simple wisdom.

This anti-intellectual garbage lies at the heart of what's wrong with American politics today. I don't know if one can overstate just how harmful this attitude is. The fact that they included the "angry stupid hippie left-wing liberals who are actually more hateful than the noble soldiers" cliché is just icing on the cake, but even without it, the movie consistently pushes a message that intelligence and education actually corrupt the soul, rather than enlightening it.

I think it's another retelling of the story of the Pure Fool, which has been a stock figure in western storytelling for many centuries. Although it may well have helped pave the way for putting a not-so-Pure Fool in the Oval Ofice, for real.

Starship Troopers, for another reprehensibility-nod. Making jingoism and totalitarianism look cool, right down to black leather trenchcoats and peaked black-and-silver caps for the psi guys.

Kanastrous wrote: Starship Troopers, for another reprehensibility-nod. Making jingoism and totalitarianism look cool, right down to black leather trenchcoats and peaked black-and-silver caps for the psi guys.

Uhm... what? What you're describing, minus the accoutrements, is the book. The movie was Verhoeven's pretty-much-overt exploration of how such a society would actually play out. Heinlein was the one who actually thought this was the pinnacle of human achievement.

I especially the "I want to do my part" propaganda scene. When the kid makes his Naïve Remark, the answering laughter is purposefully a fraction of a second slow. I though the result was really creepy, and used to excellent effect.

Kanastrous wrote: I think it's another retelling of the story of the Pure Fool, which has been a stock figure in western storytelling for many centuries. Although it may well have helped pave the way for putting a not-so-Pure Fool in the Oval Ofice, for real.

Starship Troopers, for another reprehensibility-nod. Making jingoism and totalitarianism look cool, right down to black leather trenchcoats and peaked black-and-silver caps for the psi guys.

You do realize that Paul Verhoeven was playing it for laughs, right?

Yes and no. I was there at the time and it was not all laughs. Particularly when someone made the mistake of making a Nazi reference on-set after seeing those costumes...

Kanastrous wrote:Yes and no. I was there at the time and it was not all laughs. Particularly when someone made the mistake of making a Nazi reference on-set after seeing those costumes...

Yeah, that was the fucking idea you retard.