MovieChat Forums > Zombie Strippers! (2008) Discussion > Political/philosophic al references

Political/philosophic al references


Never thought I'd be one to use such a clichéd phrase but this film may actually be so bad that it's good. I found it hilarious that the screenwriter left in so many obvious allusions to philosophy and modern politics just for us mock intellectuals to spot and feel smug over. I knew something was up when Robert Englund's character was called Mr. Ian Essko and the strip club was named Rhinos. What other references did you catch? Here's what I can remember:

Eugene Ionesco's Rhinoceros obviously, all about conformity ("must join!") and "regression to the mean". One of the girls was even called Berengé(!)

The Nietzsche book that Jenna was reading and quoting from oh-so-often.

Sartre, Nebraska.

"I think therefore I am."

The film was also blatantly anti-Republican, with anti-Bush slogans right from the start (that were really funny actually). Nice digs at religion, the NRA, mindless patriotism ("we fight the American way!") Anything else?

reply

Nice work. Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Rhinoceros. Interesting philosophy and sounds like a good play. I thought this movie was extremely smart, though not perfectly executed.

reply

The part where Jenna finally understands the Nietzsche she is reading is an allusion to Nietzsche's infamous "blonde beasts of prey" passage in On the Genealogy of Morals.

reply

There's actually a lot of philospohical references throughout, such as the guy saying "I think there for I am" when the guy was asked by the soldier to prove he was alive. I wish I could remeber the name of the philosopher who quoted that phrase, but it generally means that in the end, you can only prove that you exist since everything else can be illusion.

Also, in the deleted scenes, one of the girls, reading a magazine she says "Paris Hilton is wearing those boots, I am wearing those boots, there for I am Paris Hilton,"... this is a (to my knowledge) a logical fallacy...something like in terms of mathmatics "A equals to B, B equals to C, there for, A is equals to C".

Also, there is talk of fatalism (the idea there is no free will and all events are predetermined or subject to fate) between on of the strippers and Robert Englund's character.

Loving Jesus allows me to hate you...
I bless you in the name of the Father, Son, and Yog-Sothoth!

reply

I think, therefore I am, is from Descartes. It is formally said as "cogito ergo sum."

I definitely dislike fatalism, as it's even worse than simple determinism.

Zombie Strippers was an entertaining diversion, and the incongruity of all the philosophy was fun, but I'd rather get a dose of it from The Matrix.

reply

What's bad about determinism? I still have read no convincing arguments against it.

At any rate, this movie was lame. Implementing philosophical references in an attempt to convey a sort of cleverness is not a good thing. In fact, it just makes the writer sound desperate as if saying "look at me, look at me, I've read a few intro to philosophy books, I'm smart!".

___________________
Myspace classic cinema group:
http://groups.myspace.com/cinema101

reply

I dislike determinism because it means free will is meaningless. Whatever we do, or don't do, will lead to a predetermined outcome established by a higher power. It essentially wipes out the need for responsibility and accountability. Determinism is also garbage to someone who believes in a naturalistic worldview such as myself. I don't believe in God, so I don't believe the future is set in stone.

reply

One thing I have learn is that the idea of there being no free will doesn't have to be associate with God or the divine, for if humans reaction and emotions are nothing more than a byproduct of genes and brain chemicla reactions, then free will still doesn't exist because in the end our actions and emotions are determined by biology, not of free will

Loving Jesus allows me to hate you...
I bless you in the name of the Father, Son, and Yog-Sothoth!

reply

Then what do you call thinking? Thinking isn't simply neurochemical reactions. Deliberate thought is the proof of free will.

reply

One doesn't have to appeal to biology to defeat the idea of free will. To say that one has free will is to say that there is no sufficient cause resulting in a given choice. The only thing determinism asserts is that in every case that an agent is making a choice, a series of sufficient causes has preceded it and has made it the case that the choice will be made.

Lets say you choose to drink coke instead of pepsi. You might say you've made a free choice to pick coke. However, your reason for picking coke might be that as a child you liked coke and remember drinking it, and so you've been coerced in a way into picking coke. Then you might say: "well, then I don't care about that - I have free will, so I'll pick pepsi instead". However, this has been preceded by a sufficient cause too (you think you have free will and thus are caused to pick one over the other for the sake of picking one over the other) and thus isn't really a choice but rather an effect due to a preceding and sufficient cause.

___________________
Myspace classic cinema group:
http://groups.myspace.com/cinema101

reply

Determinism isn't about a range of probabilities. Determinism doesn't say, in any given circumstance, I might pick Coke because I liked it as a child or that I might pick Pepsi because I feel like acting against my initial impulse. Determinism says that my action in EVERY given circumstance is inevitable and unavoidable. If one can step out of our three dimensional (spatial) universe...out of the fourth dimension (temporal)...and observe my actions outside of the spacetime continuum, determinism says that someone with such a vantage can predict with 100% accuracy every single act I commit for the rest of my life.

I don't accept this. I think, if one were to step out of spacetime and observe my actions, there would be variability on the quantum level that introduces uncertainty, and that, at best, one could make probabilistic predictions with an error variance. Most of the time, the predictions would be accurate, but sometimes there would be a divergence.

If you accept M-theory (or superstring theory), then all outcomes are possible...in parallel universes. So, for whatever reason, I pick Coke in this universe, an alternate me picks Pepsi in another, and Dr Pepper in yet another. If M-theory holds up, then determinism fails completely because everything that can happen does happen somewhere in the multiverse.

This is where philosophy and theoretical physics collide. Perhaps a new philosophical concept might better fit. It could be called probabilistic determinism.

reply

How do you plan to reconcile free will with randomness?

___________________
Myspace classic cinema group:
http://groups.myspace.com/cinema101

reply

The problem is that we are limited beings perceiving one brane in three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension of a multiverse with more spatial and possibly temporal dimensions than that. So ultimately, it might be comically inaccurate for any of us to think we know what's really going on. The more I learn about higher dimensions (which is an ongoing current process), the less I think any one modern school of philosophy is even remotely accurate.

Maybe free will really is an illusion. Maybe not. Identical twin studies show that biology isn't fate, because identical genetics doesn't result in identical brains, so theoretically two people who experience the same life almost exactly can still lead to two drastically divergent lives. What defines the differences? Can they be perfectly predicted?

While I dislike determinism, I do accept part of its precepts: causality. Without causality, science wouldn't exist.

reply

I am predestined to believe in free will.

You, on the other hand, choose to believe in determinism.

Does that clarify the conundrum some?

reply

Nice.

reply

Don't forget Blavatski, a reference to Madame Blavatsky, an early-20th century occultist and founder of theosophy.

reply

> "this is a (to my knowledge) a logical fallacy...something like in terms of mathmatics [sic] 'A equals to B, B equals to C, there for, A is equals to C'."

That's not a fallacy, it's the transitive property.

The allusion to Paris Hilton looks like a failed syllogism with some steps omitted. Keep in mind that even a logically valid argument is only guaranteed to produce a true result if the premises are true.

"Only Paris Hilton can wear these boots."
"I am wearing these boots."
"Therefore, I am Paris Hilton."

reply

A equals to B, B equals to C, there for, A is equals to C

is called the "transitive property"; easy to demonstrate/prove in math, but a little trickier in logic.

When applied in complex logical problems, it's called a "syllogism". Of course, it's easy to misapply, as it is in the movie; she is *NOT* Paris Hilton. When misapplied in a logic problem, it's called a "false syllogism". People who want to mislead you with logic sometime try to pull this off. Thanks to "Zombie Strippers," you can now catch 'em at it!

reply

To add to an already excellent description: this was put forward by Aristotle who, while not what I'd think of as an existentialist per se, still brings a lot of clout to the philosopher's table.

Maybe that's why the scene was cut. Aristotle wasn't existential enough. ;)

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham!

reply

this movie is the best because it's a amazingly smart movie yet disguised as a dumb movie. it's amazing. my sis loves it. i love it. it's good ol fashion family fun.

"the longer you read this,you'll relize that this is my signature and there is no point to it"

reply

[deleted]

"this movie is the best because it's a amazingly smart movie yet disguised as a dumb movie. it's amazing. my sis loves it. i love it. it's good ol fashion family fun. "

I thought this movie was loads of fun too. Most of the conversations between the strippers were classic philosophical debates. It just dripped with sarcasm and irony, all done tongue in cheek.

this movie is a bit more than just a cheap low-budget gore-fest.

I was pleasantly surprised.

reply

jenna jameson pathetically needs for people to think she's intelligent. she isn't. i'll give her that she used to be good at what she did, but a scholar she isn't. i got most of the philosophical references that you mentioned but it's been awhile since i've seen the movie. whoever wrote it really wanted us to know that he at least went to community college and took introduction to philosophy.

i think most people with a ph.d. in philosophy are effete and unnecessary, so i found the references extremely annoying. the implication that jenna jameson actually understands nietzsche is absurd, but whatever floats her boat.

the movie was definitely fell into the so-bad-it's-good category, but not so bad that it was really really good. just really very bad but not hideous in an amusing way. 4 is an apt rating.

cheneycorp (or whatever it was) was the funniest running gag in it.

§shut up net face.

reply

implication that jenna jameson actually understands nietzsche is absurd,

Congratulations. You got the joke. Too bad it still went over your head.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

reply

i thought the philosophical references were great but that the political jokes were kind of lame and already dated by the time the movie came out.

reply

Yeah, nothing like Political and Pop references to "date/age" a movie.

reply

Honestly, this movie is actually better than people give it credit for in terms of actual writing.

Acting well.. doesn't do the clever writing justice.

It's a great parody of our country today and anyone who doesn't think some of these lines are funny doesn't have a soul.. especially the "I like Knives" guy.

"I like Knives"
*A later Scene, they're surrounded by zombies*
*He takes out a gun*
*Another soldier gives him a look*
"I like guns too.."

When it comes down to it the only thing stopping this from being a really respected movie is the crappy special effects (Zombies look good though)and some questionable acting. Maybe the nudity for the prudes :D

reply

Really couldn't agree more Chane, the writing's really fantastic both in terms of being funny and smart (something a lot of people who're only in it for tits and blood criminally overlook)

Though i have to disagree on the special effects, with the exception of two bad CGI bits at the end (Jenna's "skeleton legs" and Madame Blavatski being blown to pieces) i think the practical special effects are really top notch, especially given the low budget. I could watch Lillith ripping that guy's head in half all day, LOL, and the animatronic severed zombie head (the one they keep in the garbage bag) just plain looks real

reply

Absolutely! I have a lot of respect for the achievements of this film. Good cast, good acting, good writing, plenty to have fun with if you decide to dig deeper. Plenty of cool visual effects of different kinds.
I'm not gonna write a block of text defending the whole movie on every single thread, but come on. Horribly underrated film. And it's amazing to see the number of people on imdb alone who just did not get it.

reply

I read most of the posts in this subject and finally watched the movie- thanks IFC lol, but you have got to be kidding me that this is a smart movie. The political "humor" is middle-school level at best. It's like reading a L Ron Hubbard sci-fi novel where he immaturely ridicules Rockefeller. It's juvenile at best. As for the "intellectual" humor or the silly names are really just cliches or like the other poster notes, something got out of a philosophy 101 text. Just cliche dribble, forced without any real thought. You get more laughs from the non-forced "smartness" like the guy using a leaf blower to clean up the mess, or the jawless zombie, or Englund's germaphobia. Needs more of that humor and less "social commentary" or psuedo-intellectualism. It's what happens when you don't really understand the text.

reply