MovieChat Forums > Hoot (2006) Discussion > Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right

posted 16 years ago by rspear61
6 replies | jump to latest

I am sitting here watching the houses burn in Washington State (fires set by eco terrorists) and immediately thought of this movie. Is Hoot really doing our children a favor by glorifying the destruction of property? Some of the reviews for this movie were written by parents that said what good family fun this movie was, adding that they liked the message.

I am concerned that the old philosophical position, "the ends justify the means" (which is a powerful underlying message in this movie) is teaching our children the wrong message. "Ends justify means" has gotten the world into a load of trouble over the centuries. Everyone has some "means" they feel justified in doing.

After 40 years in education where I argued against "ends justify means", I am dismayed that we can't get past the self righteous feeling that if we are engaged in trying to right a wrong, that it is ok to use violent means. That is the same thinking that led right-to-lifers to kill doctors that perform abortions. Or, taking it to the extreme, the totalitarian regimes that kill millions of people.

War is the ultimate example of "ends justify means". If we truly want to educate our children against war, we must steer our children away from the theme of this movie. We must teach them that "two wrongs don't make a right". Then, we must teach them the non violent, respectful way to change institutionalized wrong behavior.

I wouldn't have as much problem with the theme of this movie if it weren't aimed at our youth. I read "Monkey Wrench Gang" many years ago, and loved it. I often wondered why no one did a movie of that book. It would make a great movie. Being adult themed, the audience could decide for themselves what they believe, unlike Hoot which tries to indoctrinate young kids.

"We're going to need a bigger boat..."

[–] little_marie_sunshine 16 years ago

I agree that Mullet Fingers' approach is actually criminal (esp painting the police car black). But he didn't know any better. But the protest was legal and all 3 kids had good intentions.

[–] aleut5 16 years ago

I agree that it was criminal, but it hurt no one and he didn't destroy any actual property, just spray-painted it and took the stakes out of the ground. I believe that Mullet Fingers was completely fair and just in the way he decided to go about protesting.

You have been Skadooshed!

[–] Jettatore 16 years ago

The road to hell is paved with "good intentions." Mullet Fingers, the barefoot hippie d----ebag, most definitely belongs in juvie jail. He was ready to drive the bulldozer into the water, remember? Let us count his crimes:

TRUANCY - Running away from and/or ditching school is a crime.

TRESPASSING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY - As is pointed out quite often in the movie, he had no business being on the construction site in the first place.

VANDALISM - His removal of the survey stakes on private property qualifies.

MALICIOUS DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY - Spraying paint on a motor vehicle, which is permanent and costly to remove, qualifies. He also damaged the bulldozer when he stole the seat (see below).

ASSAULT - On Roy when he meets him, and on Clark Gregg's character (the pancake businessman).

FALSE IMPRISONMENT - He bound and gagged the pancake businessman.

ANIMAL CRUELTY - What about the guard dogs he killed by unleashing his snakes after them? I thought he's supposed to be an animal lover. I guess he only cares about politically protected animals.

GRAND LARCENY - His thievery of the skiff and the bulldozer equipment.

Lock the little eco-terrorist up. How convenient that he's nowhere to be found at the end of the movie, teaching kids that they can be criminals without consequence.

And let's not forget about Roy's transgressions--lying to a healthcare provider (what is he, an illegal alien?), resisting a police officer, trespassing on private property, and being an accessory to the aforementioned larceny. The RIGHT way for the kids to deal with this situation was to immediately show the police the paperwork about protected owls and let the cops take it from there. But yeah, that wouldn't have been a very good movie. I agree that this is just a fantasy for kids, but do we really need another film that teaches young people they can break the law as long as they're on the side of smug, self-righteous, hippie liberals? Typical Hollywood.

-- Jettatore from Bolgia 9

[–] storm25storm25 13 years ago

You need to watch the movie again, the dogs were spooked by the snakes, none were killed.....

Seems you forgot about the biggest crime of all.....the cover up of endangered animals' habitats and legally protected animals. The kids knew what was being done and they used their initiative to act. Obviously you must be adapt at breaking the law if you mention petty good intentions and yet you never once mentioned the true crime......

They tried to tell authorities but they would not listen...the only way they'd listen was to show everyone the actual sighting of the owls....you really should watch the movie rather than just post a random nonsensiical slur!!!

I only axed ya for a smoke - Jack Frost

[–] RustyShacklefurd 12 years ago

rspear61,

I reject the notion that what happened in this movie is 2 wrongs. There was only 1 wrong in the movie and that was the kids' campaign to stop the construction of the pancake restaurant. Destroying the owls' habitat in order to build a pancake restaurant was a good thing.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Here's an example of two wrongs=no right. Dana strangling Roy on the bus and Roy fighting back by punching him in the nose followed by running off. Roy was damn lucky to not get suspended from school after the vice principal saw what Dana did to Roy. Roy did downplay the two week suspension from the bus a little bit, what with the apology letter and how he explained himself there.