Were people really this stupid back in 1977 - Saturday Night Fever (1977) Discussion

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 5 years ago

Stephanie was a hypocrite plain and simple, she put down Tony for not being "sophisticated" yet the only reason she got as far as she did was because she put out.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Stephanie was a snob, but she didn't put out for simply anyone.

Unfortunately, Tony's pals mistook the sweeter Annette's openness for sexual availability and gang-raped her.

reply

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 5 years ago

No she put out for people who promised to elevate her career.

Double J did take advantage of Annette, she told him she didn't want to do it yet he did, but watch the scene again she never told Joey to stop.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sure but Stephanie, although an awful person, at least avoided being taken advantage of. She chose who she did and didn't have sex with. Poor Annette was treated like crap simply for being nice.

reply

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 5 years ago

True, she did stop Tony from taking advantage of her in the car which by the way was a good move, but she did allow people at work to take advantage of her and pretty much became the office slut. It was either that or kiss her career goodbye and go back to Brooklyn with all of the "unsophisticated" people.

Annette on the other hand I don't feel was taken advantage of for being nice. First things first, that night Annette, Joey and Double J were trashed, Annette was using Joey and Double J to make Tony jealous but that plan backfired when she came off her drugs and realized she made poor decisions and then Double J took advantage of her. Whether this was out of virtue or not Tony did try to lead her away and told her that she was making a terrible mistake and Annette didn't listen.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Good points.

You sound like you've seen the film more recently than me, or maybe you've simply got a better memory.

Still, I get the impression that Annette was assaulted because she appeared to Tony's friends be easy and sexually available. I certainly don't think Tony was virtuous because if he had been, he'd have tried much harder to prevent Annette's abuse. Yes, he did warn her. Yes, I'm sure he didn't want to see any harm to her. But he could and should have intervened when she was being gang-raped.

Stephanie was a snob, and she did allow herself to be exploited by people at work, but there was still a degree of autonomy on her part. She effectively 'chose' who could and couldn't use her. She wasn't going to put out for 'losers' and 'deadbeats', only men who could advance her career, or maybe, at a stretch, guys like Tony who she found vaguely attractive.

reply

[–] BooBooCat (652) 4 years ago

I certainly don't think Tony was virtuous because if he had been, he'd have tried much harder to prevent Annette's abuse.

I second that.

She wasn't going to put out for 'losers' and 'deadbeats', only men who could advance her career, or maybe, at a stretch, guys like Tony who she found vaguely attractive.

This, however, I don't really know what to think about. I don't think that she should put up with ANY kind of abuse. Allowing some people to abuse her for the sake of her career reminds a bit of the whole Harvey Weinstein situation. I don't feel like it's a good message.

Plus, no Tony wasn't the best human being on the planet, but he did seem to genuinely care for her and be a good guy for. So choosing to be abused by people who obviously don't care about her as a person instead of giving a guy who seem to really like her (and teasing him a little bit) doesn't feel right or healthy.

Yeah, Tony screwed everything up and showed his true colors with his rape attempt on her. Still, a part of me thinks that he wouldn't done it if she would had given him a chance (without by ANY mean justifying his actions).

reply

[–] Rolltide (964) 2 years ago

They did not rape her.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

Ummmmm, Annette told them she would put out for them. Until she told Double J to stop she 100% brought all of it on herself.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I think these people were realistically stupid.

It's refreshing for once to have a film in which the main characters are simply ordinary people rather than super-geniuses.

This isn't a Marvel flick or a frickin Aaron Sorkin ode to elitism.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Real people are just as stupid, crude,and unsophisticated today. It's just been a long time since a film about real (or realistic) people has been a big hit.

I wouldnt call SNF a great movie, it's a good movie that captured the zeitgeist of it's time as few movies do. It was the height of the Disco craze, and somehow almost everyone saw something of themselves in the tale of a regular schmuck with a dead-end job and zero social status, whose hopes of a better life were centered around strutting at the disco.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'd call it a 'great movie', for the very things you highlight.

I wasn't even alive in 1977. I've never been to New York. I like disco but I wouldn't say The Bee Gees are my favourite. But these people feel authentic to me. They're screw-ups, like a lot of ordinary people, especially post-high school, and Tony Manero was clinging onto the one thing he was actually any good at, 'strutting at the disco'.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

It's one of those movies that I realize are very good, very well-made, but that just don't get me in a personal place. Like the "Godfather" movies, I don't identify with the characters or particularly like spending two hours with them, this movie just isn't my slice of pie.

And "Thor: Ragnarok" is. There really is no accounting for personal taste.

reply

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I've never connected with The Godfather films or characters (except maybe poor, pathetic Fredo) as much as many others, who cite it as 'the best film ever made', seem to, but although I'm glad to say that I can't really relate to most of the SNF characters on a personal level, they do strike me as very real.

I also like the inherent contradictions in Tony's character. The guy is an arrogant, chauvinist, petulant, often times quite shallow prick, and yet he can occasionally be capable of surprising moments of humanity and decency, like when he hands his dance prize to the second-placed Latino couple because he recognises that they danced better than him, and that the only reason he and his partner won is because he's Italian-American and the other couple are Latinos. His single-minded passion for dance was the one thing that was capable of eking out his inner-goodness, and there's something quite touching about that. If only that could have been channelled to make him such a good person 24/7.

I also find Tony's desperate and suicidal pal, Bobby C, often treated as a figure of fun by his friends, and Tony's priest brother, the pride of his Catholic family, who is having serious doubts about his vocation, extremely sad and touching in their pathos.

reply

[–] BooBooCat (652) 4 years ago

The guy is an arrogant, chauvinist, petulant, often times quite shallow prick, and yet he can occasionally be capable of surprising moments of humanity and decency,

Yeah, he kinda reminds me of Jax Teller in Sons of Anarchy on that aspect. I like it, because it gives more layers to a character than simply him/her being "good" or "bad".

Funny fact, I didn't care much for either Saturday Night Fever nor Sons of Anarchy, but this might the one thing that I really liked in both cases.

Just like Tony, Jax from SoA is an asshole and overall despicable human being, but he does have his moments of human decency when he actually makes the best choices and have moments of regrets which show that he is not a totally remorseless dick.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 2 years ago

He's a human being in short. Don't be hard on Tony- we're all entitled to enjoy ourselves in our own way His was dancing.

reply

[–] transitfan (4) 6 months ago

I got the feeling that Double-J and Joey only tolerated Bobby because of Tony. We don't have a back story, but it wouldn't surprise me if Tony and Bobby had been friends the longest (maybe going back to elementary school), and the J's came along later. The J's (like Bobby) looked up to Tony, and so if they did ever complain about Bobby to Tony, Tony was probably like "I've known him longer than you guys, he's part of our group and that's that")

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

People are as stupid now as they were then. The only thing is now we have all this technology that somehow masks that stupidity somewhat. People actually are dumber now, just because in 1977, I don't think people would have voted for Trump in big numbers. That is a good litmus test on which generation is dumber.

reply

[–] strntz (10790) 4 years ago

People actually are dumber now, just because in 1977, I don't think people would have voted for Trump in big numbers. That is a good litmus test on which generation is dumber.

It has nothing to do with intelligence.

I agree that Trump would have been laughed off the ballot in '77, but his victory in 2016 had far less to do with him and far more with the most corrupt politician ever to run for or hold office as the other option. I didn't vote for Trump in '16, but I couldn't vote for Hillary either.

What's our choice today? We have avowed Marxists calling the shots on the left, demanding socialism, removal or outright rewriting of history, and defunding of police forces. Today's centrist Democrats (what's left of them) are afraid to say anything to rile the anarchists who have hijacked the party, including Biden (although he's just a senile old man sock puppet at this point). That leaves the least offensive candidate again for 2020: Donald J. Trump, who I WILL vote for this coming November.

If you are a Socialist/Marxist/Communist, then the Dems are your folks this Nov. If you still believe in law and order and the Constitution, there is no other option than the blowhole who is in the Whitehouse right now.

I have no choice: I'll hold my nose and vote for Trump and, for the first time in my life, will pull the party lever as well.

God Bless America.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

I can't and won't vote for either one. I can't stand Trump. He is dangerous. I fear his next move, if he is reelected, will be a nuclear war with some country. Biden is a boob and has nothing to bring to the table. I really don't understand how we are moving toward Socialism though. We pay taxes and deserve more for what we get. How is getting our money's worth Socialism? And if you are talking about healthcare, I would gladly pay more in taxes to get UHC. Our system sucks and too many people can't access it. Between our employers taking money out of our check for it and all those blasted co pays, insurance companies give us shit for all the money we have to dish out. Also, to have some for profit insurance company in charge of healthcare is insane. No other country has or wants our system. I just can't figure how we are still dealing with this BS after all these years. My aunt had to fight tooth and nail for 9 months to get an operation that he doctor said was needed, but the insurance company would not pay for. It was OK'd finally, but the doctor said that they caught it too late to save her. She died 7 months later. There are many stories like that. Our healthcare system is only for the rich and well-insured. It sucks.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1365) 2 years ago

Indeed it has nothing to do with intelligence, because if you vote for Trump you have none.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

I would say that people are just as stupid now as then, because if the dead-end punks from "SNF" had had to deal with a pandemic, ya think they'd have been happy to wear masks, wash their hands, obey lockdown orders, and socially distance? No! They'd have behaved just like today's thoughtless idiot punks!

If people seem stupider now than then, it's not because humans have changed, it's because thanks to the corruption of the corporate media and the rise of the internet - there's so much more misinformation available.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 3 years ago

In '77 they hadn't had 40 years of brainwashing by Lush Dimbaugh.

reply

[–] Boricanator (1365) 2 years ago

In 1980 they voted for Reagan, which wasn’t much better than Trump. Another celebrity who didn’t know much about anything.

reply

[–] KaiMaster (784) 3 years ago

Great review!

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Back then? Have you seen a MAGA rally?

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Seriously man did you have to make this discussion political? I could easily post a video of the “minority got Obama phone” woman and just like you that’d get us nowhere

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It’s a 7 month old post. Chill

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

12 days

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Meant the original post, not mine. If anything I revived this stale forgotten thread. On a 42 year old film.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Oh

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20413) 4 years ago

If both of you would remember one thing you would stop this quarreling:

Whether your a brother or whether your a mother, your staying alive!

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Just don’t touch the hair!

reply

[–] Mrmojo4700 (20413) 4 years ago

Lol

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Hey, I like the obama phone.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Have you seen a Hillary rally? Oh wait there aren't any.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Lol.

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13006) 4 years ago

The movie, and the soundtrack, were such a HUGE deal at the time, for YEARS. I don't know how someone born later can watch it without the perspective. I didn't like it at the time, tried watching it a few years ago, yep still nothing.

Now, Looking For Mr. Goodbar...

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

Just saw Looking for Mr. Goodbar two nights ago and it is still as upsetting as it was when I saw it in the theater as a 15 year old back in the 70's.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 (4707) 4 years ago

Have you been in a coffee shop lately? Silence, cell, or retard violent jokes.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 2 years ago

That's right. Even though Stephanie and Tony's conversation was pretty inane and pretentious; at least they were talking to each other. Pisses me off when I talk to someone and they don't respond because their face is buried in their phone.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The entire cast were supposed to represent stereotypical "guidos", not how people thought at the time.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yep... people need to understand that this was the equivalent of watching a movie about white trash living in a trailer park. Just because they lived in New York City doesn't mean they were trailer trash which is all they were... you don't expect to see brilliant minds in this type of environment.

The movie itself was really all about the music, consider that at the time there was no MTV and music on TV was pretty much limited to a American Bandstand and Soul Train... this was in essence nothing but a theatrical music video. People were more focused on the music than the movie which was painfully bad and pointless.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 4 years ago

There was a lot more going on in this movie than music. Sorry you missed it.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 4 years ago

Exactly

reply

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 4 years ago

Very stupid indeed and then some!

reply