Wow!!!!!!!
This movie is the ultimate bromance!
share[deleted]
But it simply is not cynical and nihilistic. It is about the triumph of love and self-sacrifice against the law of the jungle.
But I guess if you're a blinkered homophobe, you won't be able to see that.
The weak highly unrealistic "queer love conquers all" sadistic torture scene ending did not justify all the other evil crap. But you're a European freak wanking off to snuff compost, you would not be able to see that.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt
It is only 'queer love' which is conquering all in your bigoted head. It is *love*, without a genetic imperative, and therefore simply love.
shareHa! So because queer love has no genetic imperative, it is the most 'pure'!
[copious vomit icon]
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt
In terms of Price's theory, yes. But not in other sense. But you're just a bigot, mate, so I don't expect you to understand.
shareI do not care a whit whether people want to be gay. If I could press a button that would convert gays to straight, I would not press it. Gay people make the world more colorful.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt
"Gay people make the world more colorful."
ESPECIALLY if they play piano in Vegas;
NM
"Simply Love" - the same type of love that Jesus exhibited on the cross when he absorbed all the pain and hell and separation from his Father so we could be forgiven for our sins and have a relationship with our Heavenly Father God, whom cannot look upon sin.
That is the perfect example of simply love...which the movie was trying to portray but through in all the gore so you would have to work at recognizing it.
Kind of like life.
Oh, please. A mother loves a child. A guy loves his brother. A grandson loves his grandmother. All of THESE loves are not as strong as the closeted gay white middle-aged police who LOVES the black young criminal.
The genes of the illiterate, tatooed, lying, violent, drug-dealing criminal are the ones to be preserved. In your view, this is a triumph of love and the world is better. OK, duly noted.;-)
Well, no, his genes won't be preserved. (He - the illiterate [though how do you know that?] etc gangster might go on to have children, but that's outside the story). The non-preservation of genes is the point.
shareNow you are making no sense. Earlier, you said
It is about the triumph of love and self-sacrifice against the law of the jungle.There are plenty of examples of this all through history. The Muslim terrorist blows himself up for what he perceives as the good of other Muslims. The soldier jumps on the handgrenade to save the other guys in his outfit. A plane crashes into the freezing Potomac in 1982, and the selfless "sixth passenger" (Arland Williams, Jr. who deserves to be named) drowns after giving up the rescue lines to the five survivors.
The premise of the movie is that somehow genes have intelligence, and people are not responsible for their decisions...unless, of course, it is based on gay love and results in saving a scummy drug-dealing rapist who is a drain on society. Again, duly noted.;-) share
Sorry, that isn't the premise of the movie. There is a theory - that is, a scientific theory - which says that what appears to be selflessness is just genes (not because genes are intelligent, but because of the effects they have on related or potentially-related individuals).
That a gay lover chooses to die disproves this theory because there is no genetic investment (they can't have children, and they're not related).
It is not that only gay love can be selfless - I think that is a perverse and frankly homophobic reading of the film. It is that selflessness can be purely and simply that, purely and simply because of love and not because of genes, or more broadly not because of something underlying apparent altruism which is actually selfish after all. It's a statment, basically, that people can be good. The hero of the story is not the 'scummy drug dealing rapist' (though he's not a rapist - he didn't stop the rape, but he's not a rapist), but the cop who chooses to die for love. He's a very flawed hero. But aren't we all?
So. The grandson chooses himself, and his grandmother dies. The brother chooses himself, and his brother dies. The gangster chooses himself, and his girlfriend and unborn child dies.
But. The flabby burnout middle-aged white gay cop chooses selflessly, and his thug criminal ripped you black gangster lover gets to live. Therefore, the gay love is most nobel and pure. OK, duly noted.
Did you read my examples of selfless behavior, in my previous post above? There are tons of examples where selfless behavior is motivated without a genetic investment, and there are three above. I am familiar with theory (and book) of "The Selfish Gene" and the theory of the Altruistic gene, and now The Killing Gene. The movie actually was kind of cool, if only because the killer was named "Jean." But these theories are sophistry, college-bull session foolishness that adds nothing to the understanding of the human condition (and, as one poster pointed out, fits in nicely with the nihilistic European cynicism that discounts man, values, and the effort it takes to make a civil society).
btw, the scummy drug dealing rapist was a rapist. His story changed, he was no longer in the car, he was in the hall, and then Eddie got the unspoken crushing answer when he asked him if he was in the room. He turned away crushed, because he was now picturing his lover in the act of raping Selma Blair; unless, you think Eddie was OK with him in the hallway, but not in the corner of the room watching. Eddie knew this was a possibility, which is why the evidence was "contaminated", and it was finally confirmed. Well, that and the fact that it is Selma Blair, who is so sexy she can convert gay men.
And my description of the premise of the movie is correct; it just looks ridiculous when I put it into words, just as the theory is.
You also seemed to argue my assertion that the gangster was illiterate. Perhaps I am making a value judgment on a young black man who spends his time with other criminals, doing drugs, violence, and sex for pay. He could be an Elizabethean scholar in his spare time when he is not sucking a pipe (yes, that was a double-entendre), participating in a gang rape or manipulating law enforcement with his 'charms'.;-) So I'll give you that one.
You also probably believe in Darwin (I'm assuming). If this gene cannot reproduce, then by definition it will be eliminated from the species. So is being gay genetic? Wow! It gets circular, doesn't it?
Well, I disagree with your positions, but you argue well and civilly, which is a breath of fresh air on imdb.com. Thank you for your posts, and see you on the boards. Please have the last word if you wish. Cheers.
Last word or not - I'm sorry, but you are very confused. As I have already said, the film does not seem to me to argue at all that 'gay love is the most pure and noble'; only that love can be non-genetically driven. I think to see this film as some kind of gay separatist manifesto is quite strange.
So your 'circular' thing is just irrelevant: "If this gene cannot reproduce, then by definition it will be eliminated from the species. So is being gay genetic?" What gene? What are you talking about?
In a previous post you said "The premise of the movie is that somehow genes have intelligence, and people are not responsible for their decisions...unless, of course, it is based on gay love"
But there is no claim that genes are intelligent; people *are* responsible for their own actions, despite their genes (eg, kill their own child).
The point to the film is that this is a world which appears relentlessly selfish and appalling, in which the most terrible things happen, and it seems that *this* selfish, violent awfulness is at the heart of the human condition - but in the end that turns out to be untrue; that even in the most unlikely place, even with the most unlikely people, who you would expect to be selfish and violent and awful, in fact there can be love. It's you, it seems to me, imputing to it some kind of statement just about gay love.
I agree with your statement below, that this is not about gay love.
"The point to the film is that this is a world which appears relentlessly selfish and appalling, in which the most terrible things happen, and it seems that *this* selfish, violent awfulness is at the heart of the human condition - but in the end that turns out to be untrue; that even in the most unlikely place, even with the most unlikely people, who you would expect to be selfish and violent and awful, in fact there can be love. It's you, it seems to me, imputing to it some kind of statement just about gay love."
Then if this movie ends up showing us that man isn't inherently evil and agrees with the earlier description that the movie is based on the nihilistic european view. And, that would further that same premise that Jesus - Selfless - Love - Forgiveness - the Cross, is unwarranted. Man is capable of an act of selfless love usually reserved coming from God, therefore, making man capable of graduating to a Godlike status from personal choice.
Or, you could say that the film proves the very same self sacrifice that Jesus gave on the Cross, shown by symbolism in this film. But you had to pick through the gore and screams to find.
[deleted]
and you wonder why the rest of the world hates your country?
http://learnyourdamnhomophones.com/ Learn your damn homophones.
and you wonder why the rest of the world hates your country?
When the rest of the world professes to love this country, then I'll be more worried.
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." - A.E. Van Vogt share
O-hoh-hoh-KAY!
Lace Demon Ian S.
Hmm...
PS This film sucks the big fat one...
Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit shooting smack...share
Oh, how clever you are!
Surely, the US culture is so much more higher to any other, because they would never make heinously sadistic movies like SAW, Hostel or I Spit on your Grave-- oops!
Oh, how clever you are!
Surely, the US culture is so much more higher to any other, because they would never make heinously sadistic movies like SAW, Hostel or I Spit on your Grave-- oops!
Since you pay me compliment…
“Hostel” (2005) directed by New York educated Eli Roth.
“I Spit on Your Grave” (1978), (2010) directed by transplant to Los Angeles Steven Monroe.
It is common knowledge that New York and Los Angeles are wretched hives of scum and villainy!
These are apparently lowbrow flicks featuring explicit sadistic violence, torture, and revenge. Revenge can be very affirming. Ergo, these films are NOT necessarily leftist nihilism. However, they are also nothing I would care to watch.
“Saw” (2004) directed by Malaysian-Chinese born Australian James Wan. He is not exactly representative of mainstream American society. Let’s face reality - Asian societies are especially susceptible to the worst ideas imported from the Western cultural left.
“There is NO such thing as a free lunch.” - Milton Friedman share
If this is satire, I love it.
If not... oh, well. Then I'd still be interested how it comes that SAW apparently made more money in the US then anywhere else in the world.
BTW, the killer's motive in WAZ was revenge as well. How come you view this movie as nihilistic, but not Hostel/Grave? That contradicts itself, doesn't it?
I have not seen Hostel/Grave, so I can only go by what I read.
It’s the filmmaker’s obvious psychological appeal to sadistic fantasies that I especially don’t like.
This movie, twisted as it is, is not as nihilistic as “Funny Games” and “The Strangers”. At least this movie makes a weak contrived pretense of rising above zero at the end.
“There is NO such thing as a free lunch.” - Milton Friedman
Oh.
share