MovieChat Forums > Dante's Inferno Discussion > Seriously?

Seriously?

posted 16 years ago by fat_bottom_girl
12 replies | jump to latest

I read about this in EW, got excited (being an English teacher) and sat down to watch it last night. I stopped about halfway through. This film is nothing but a 2 hour left-wing propaganda machine. I mean, I always knew that the pseudo-intellectual hippies at Starbucks with their laptops were pretentious, but I can't imagine the volume of gall it takes to transform one of humanity's most treasured literary masterpieces into one's personal political statement.
I watched, hoping it would get better, right up until the Fox News helicopter arrives to give Dante a lift (no, I am not making this up) to Capitol Hill. Yeah.
Politics aside, this movie is still just plain bad. Even fine actors like Durmot Mulroney and James Cromwell could not (or didn't bother to) inject life into the script. Incidentally, I had absolutely no idea that this was supposed to be a comedy until I arrived at this website. Now I'm trying to figure out which parts were supposed to be funny. I suppose the part with God selecting people to come out of limbo was mildly amusing, but that's all I can think of.
The antithesis of "divine comedy."

[–] awing89 16 years ago

You're forgetting a very important thing: the Divine Comedy already *was* someone's personal political statement--Dante Alighieri's. Dante inserted monologues about Italian politics, and he put his political enemies in hell. The political statements in the film were a little jarring for me, too, but they fit entirely with the character of the original work. The film is very up front about being a modern day take on the work, and it makes sense that they would make statements about today's world, rather than delve into thirteenth century Florentine politics. You can disagree with the politics of the filmmakers, but you can't argue that they injected politics into an apolitical work.

[–] fat_bottom_girl 16 years ago

Yeah, that's why I didn't argue that they injected politics into an apolitical work.

[–] awing89 16 years ago

Well, yeah, you kind of did. You can't transform the Divine Comedy into "someone's personal political statement;" that's what it was already.

In other words, your problem isn't that they made it someone's political statement, but rather that it was the political statement of someone you disagreed with? If you're going to do an update of the Divine Comedy, then you have to do basically what they did--put your political views in, and don't be shy about it. If it didn't contain right or left wing propaganda, then it wouldn't keep the character of the original.

[–] fat_bottom_girl 16 years ago

No, my problem is that it's not Dante's words and the "film" is called "Dante's Inferno." Perhaps they should've changed the title of the "film" to "Some left-wing douchebag's Inferno."

[–] awing89 16 years ago

First of all, why is "film" in quotation marks?

Secondly, if your problem was that they changed some things, then why are you harping on the political stuff? Why didn't you stop watching once you realized that it was set in the present? It was blatantly, blatantly obvious that they were going trying to update it, hoping to get the audience more involved by exploring a world analogous (at least in the filmmaker's view) to Dante's but more similar to the audience's. It's not entirely unlike what "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" did with the Odyssey. It isn't as though they promised to do an exact retelling of the Divine Comedy, and it should have been very obvious that they weren't going to.

You can say, of course, that no one should put their own, contemporary spin on a classic; but if so, then the film's politics are irrelevant, because the entire project is something you wouldn't approve of. You can also say, "I don't like left-wing politics," but it's a little disingenuous to phrase that as some sort of defense of Dante Alighieri.

[–] king_of_bob 15 years ago

You don't make any sense. As the above poster pointed out, politics were a large part of the original work. So why do you have a problem with a modern adaptation doing the same?

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] DoctorStrangelove 16 years ago

Dang, I wish I'd read this post earlier. I wasted a half-hour watching this crap.

The Doctor is out. Far out.

[–] Johnny_cake 16 years ago

" I suppose the part with God selecting people to come out of limbo was mildly amusing, but that's all I can think of.
The antithesis of "divine comedy." "

So, you're an English teacher, and you don't know that the classical tragedy/comedy distinction refers only to the endings? The reason it is the Divine COMEDY is because it has a happy ending, as opposed to a sad ending (tragedy), not because it was supposed to be funny. You are part of the reason why our students are so behind those of other countries.

[–] ReelFilmster 16 years ago

I didn't truly like the movie either- I totally respected it for what it was attempting though with the update, but if you're going to slap "Dante's Inferno" on there you might want to bring an all around A Game with your script as there are a lot of educated people who can call you out...So I agree this should have been retitled.

We knew what the source material was- but in the end the movie would have made it's points if the guy's name were David or some such...putting Dante on it just makes it seem like the filmmakers are dying to piss in the face of a classic film as well as mock the book's structure...which really is not cool from a filmmakers view. It's almost like a student calling his teacher a chump, letting him constantly know that he doesn't fit into the modern world anymore.

The imagination with the clip art was absolutely amazing though and I'd recommend it to anyone who loves original creativity...but it's not just Dante, and it's kind of assholish to keep professing to book lovers that it is. It isn't. IT SIMPLY ISN'T. It's a new directors novelty take on a grand classic- that's all it is. It's certainly obvious that the conventions used were the films marketing and drawing points (why the fucl< would you even go to those lengths if it wasn't)- not the story. The story in this case simply fuels the gimmick they chose to run with.

They could have easily won over both audiences if they just changed the guy's bloody name and made it their own- but they delivered it by shoving it in our face. Some of us love that approach and some of us don't...so I see why some die hards including the OP are truly pissed off.

RF

"This is me...ya anonymous bitches"
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=PREVALENTMIND

[–] CelticRose 15 years ago

I am in complete and total agreement.

At least Dante was fair with the people he condemned to hell: there were the usual phlanx of historical villains, but there were also corrupt religious authorities, businessmen, and politicians of all stripes. Dante took aim at all deviant figures in society--not just one side.

This version, however, spun it so that Hell was full of Republican and conservative figures--but not a single Democrat or liberal (unless you count the homosexuals on the basis of their lifestyle--which I don't).

Seriously--where's Hillary Clinton? Where's Michael Moore? What about the obnoxious, shove-it-down-your-throat liberal actors like Sean Penn or Rosie O'Donnell? (Is she still considered an actor? )

I appreciated the subtle bits of political humor, like the dubya caricature in the portrait of the pope; unfortunately, there weren't nearly enough of those.

Corduroy pillows: they're making headlines!
-------<--<@

[–] Heretic_Of_Jeff_Bezos 12 years ago

At least Dante was fair with the people he condemned to hell: there were the usual phlanx of historical villains, but there were also corrupt religious authorities, businessmen, and politicians of all stripes. Dante took aim at all deviant figures in society--not just one side.

No, he wasn't fair. There were people that minorly inconvenienced Dante that he put in Hell. It was his opinions and it was his work. He put people wherever.

This version, however, spun it so that Hell was full of Republican and conservative figures--but not a single Democrat or liberal (unless you count the homosexuals on the basis of their lifestyle--which I don't).

Yes there are. Lots of them. You just weren't paying attention.

Lyndond Johnson is there for escalating Vietnam, JFK is near the beginning for lust, Marilyn Monroe is there for taking her own life, Billy Carter is prominantly featured, and on and on and on. Yes, there were more Republicans, but the fact you didn't see any Democrats is very telling of your own bias.

Seriously--where's Hillary Clinton? Where's Michael Moore? What about the obnoxious, shove-it-down-your-throat liberal actors like Sean Penn or Rosie O'Donnell?

You are truly an idiot. They are still alive, so they can't be in Hell yet. I realize that Cheney was there, but that was the final level which is for serious crimes and demons took over his body for his time left on Earth. Sean Penn and Roseanne, while annoying, haven't done anything comparable to launching an illegal war that killed a million civilians based on lies like Cheney did.

I am eyesbick-1. Prophet of the IMDb Moderator Gods.

[–] CelticRose 10 years ago

No, he wasn't fair. There were people that minorly inconvenienced Dante that he put in Hell. It was his opinions and it was his work. He put people wherever.

Then why is it so difficult to imagine that the director of this film is exercising his personal biases in his handling of the material?

Yes there are. Lots of them. You just weren't paying attention.

If it was so obvious, then why am I not the only one complaining about it? The liberal figures were given (at most) brief cameos; a lot more energy was put into representing conservative personalities, who not only took up more screen time but were often given dialogue as well.

You are truly an idiot. They are still alive, so they can't be in Hell yet. I realize that Cheney was there, but that was the final level which is for serious crimes and demons took over his body for his time left on Earth.

Mm hmm. Then why are the entire Fox News team and the rest of Dubya's cabinet in Hell? Or did you miss the obvious Condeleeza Rice caricature?

I'm fairly liberal myself, but I can definitely tell that this film leans heavily to the left. And based on your comments, I can safely assume that you do as well. Get over yourself. (Oh, and not that it matters, but I mentioned Rosie O'Donnell, not Roseanne Barr.)