MovieChat Forums > C.O.G. (2013) Discussion > Posh, rich, educated, atheistic white pe...

Posh, rich, educated, atheistic white people are the only good ones?

posted 11 years ago by nnenok
5 replies | jump to latest

Against my expectations I disliked this movie; I watched it until the end only because I hoped the main character will get some epiphany and realized not all people below him are idiots. Sadly, it didn't happen.

Technically, I'm more similar to David/Samuel than to any of the other characters in the movie - I'm also white, non-immigrant, doing my PhD, gay, and generally atheistic. But certainly not so dumb to think of myself as better than everybody else who doesn't have this traits. This movie represents factory workers as ignorant imbeciles who couldn't find a better jobs, immigrants as stealers, and Christians as envious nutjobs with an anger problem. I don't know enough about the North vs. South relationships between Americans but I'm pretty sure the movie also implied that all the Southern ones (rednecks) were idiots, so he should run back to the safety of Connecticut. The main character somehow overlooks the fact that his characteristics (that he has no influence on, like skin color and intelligence) are the ones that allow him to keep getting better jobs and getting people to trust him.

Personally, I was most insulted with the attitude towards the factory workers, because I did my share of student work behind the assembly line - just like Samuel, to get an idea of how the less privileged people live, but in contrast to him I actually learned something. For example that not everybody can get into a fancy school and travel the world. Some people are not smart enough, others don't have enough money, need to take care of sick families etc. I know that America was built on the idea that everybody can become whatever they want if they are willing to do something about it, but society still differs between differently privileged. And also, why should a person picking and separating apples be less worthy than somebody smart who knows Japanese? This is not a good argument for judging people. (And btw, the blonde woman who was presented as such a stuck-up for not chatting with him next to the assembly line - working at this kind of time limit and daily standard is hell. There is no time to chat, otherwise you lose your job.)

Even the representation of Christians, who are often presented as whackos and often are for being very close-minded, is in my opinion too harsh here. If somebody gets pissed off because somebody learned your skill and is better than you now, it means that this person is nuts, not their religion. This guy was clearly an abusive ex-alcoholic with PTSD, so there's no need to throw another flaming log into the Christian pile. It appeared very forced when he threw the "you're a fag" in his final outburst, because it was obvious that they tried to make it again just about Christians vs. homosexuality - even though it was not.

[–] roell29 10 years ago

I didn't take it that way at all. The Mexican workers were depicted as humble, decent people and there was no suggestion that they had actually stolen David's money. That was his hasty assumption borne of his privileged position in society. I think that's what the movie was trying to express. The characters are deeply flawed and lie to themselves without realizing it, just like people do in real life. It didn't depict all Christians as hypocrites. The couple who put them up in their house and the other Christians seemed to be quite decent (if a bit one-dimensional). To me, it was about a young man's sad and painful journey of self-discovery and disillusionment. These are the kinds of things that most everyone in life experiences. People are often not what they seem. They can cruel and vicious and lie to themselves, but ultimately they are only doing the best they can. I thought it was very real. I don't think the intention was to send any particular message about any particular group of people. It's true that the people in the factory were, for the most part, pretty horrible, but I doubt the director was trying to express the notion that factory workers are all horrible. I would guess that you yourself have probably been to a place where it seemed that most everyone there was just awful - there might be a core group of awful people who attract like-minded people around them and they wind up characterizing the entire place. And assembly-line work is pretty dehumanizing in the first place. it would be hard to maintain a sparkling personality in a such a place. I think It plays with the ideas of cultural stereotypes. It's not trying to enforce them but to question them. David himself made assumptions about people based on stereotypes that turned out to be completely wrong. And his girl friend who called the Mexicans "trash" - that obviously said more about her than it did them.

Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

[–] larryromano 10 years ago

I tend to agree with you roell. I find the OP to be an oversimplification of what's really going on in this movie. The movie is just trying to show a person who is struggling to figure out his life and reality and that kind of stuff.

Oh and OP, this movie has nothing to do with the south. It takes place in the Pacific Northwest, either Oregon or Washington, I don't remember which. Rural, definitely, southern, definitely not.

When the factory worker was cold to Samuel I didn't say "Oh the movie is trying to depict factory workers as bad". I took it the way you did in your explanation for why a factory worker would be short in a situation like that. Lie you said, they're under pressure and trying to get a job done. That's all I took from it. If anything Samuel came off looking out of place in that scene because he seemed like he didn't really want to work.

In the scene where the factory workers are making fun of him, yes they came across as being unnecessarily cruel, but that's life. When you are a fish out of water, people more often than not are going to treat you poorly. When it' obvious that you don't need to be in a job like that when everyone else around you does, even more so.

I liked the movie a lot. Because it's not trying to send some grand message about any political or social issue or group.

I found the religious aspect to be the most interesting. Especially the alcoholic mason.

[–] tim-arnold777 10 years ago

Considering the author of the essay and the actor Jonathan Groff are gay, I have to say the portrayal of Christians was real enough. I am a minister at a fairly large southern Californian church (non-denim.) and there ARE nut jobs, gay-bashers, and closeted homosexuals that all share a pew on Sunday morning and are probably none-the-wiser. Actually I thought the most seemingly "sane" characters in the film were the migrant apple pickers. And they never did establish that they robbed Samuel. Could have been Hobbs for all we know. But even if they did, so what? What I did find unbelievable about Samuel's character, is that he was a little too polite. Educated people can be just as rude and dismissive as a bunch of apple-sorting rednecks—which I would have thought didn't existent in the liberal State of Oregon (not the South), but what do I know?

Real-life in the church actually IS a bunch of people trying to sort it out and not *beep* stuff up beyond all reCOGnition...but the pastors who sit in private and listen to people's troubles are the few who know we are all dealing with stuff. I used to be an agnostic/atheist through my teens and 20's. I thought there had to be much more than the visceral pleasures and pains of living, and I've come to the conclusion that there is. We just have to dig for it. This movie doesn't leave us with some beautifully crafted piece of art. It is "useful" like the simple jade box that Samuel fashioned out of scraps of Jon's "precious" material. Whether that small plain jade box holds a daughter's jewelry, or some hippie's weed, it is useful.

I disagree that film was too harsh on Christians. The family that moved out Jon and Samuel of the basement for their 10 year-old son, did the right thing. They helped find them another place to go...even if it was a closed up beauty parlor. Beggars can't be choosers. And I also did see that Jon's hurtful words and actions toward Samuel were out of his own personal fears, experiences, and hatred. Not the teachings of Jesus.

In the end there was an epiphany (I think). Real life shapes us and causes growth. Whether or not the protagonist's spiritual faith was going to last or not isn't important. He had experienced REALITY and it changed him. He suffered rejection, loss, and fear, but he also experienced acceptance, grace, and in the end, security in whoever he chose to be. Downer ending, sure. It's a grower, not a show-er.

[–] candypants42 10 years ago

I basically agree with above posters that the movie didn't seem to try to make anyone look particularly good, least of all the main character. I also found him hard to like at times, but I think that was part of the point, and as has been previously mentioned on other threads Sedaris (the author who penned the autobiographical short story) has said that the film was hard to watch because he was confronted with how "pretentious and horrible" he used to be.

Actually I also thought that the parts in the factory were some of the worst in this regard, but I don't think the women workers were meant to come off as "unnecessarily cruel". They didn't come off that way to me at all, it just seemed like he was asking for what he got there.

I didn't really like the film at the middle but in the end I found it interesting because, like poster tim-arnold said with regards to the Jon character, it also showed how the main character's flaws was shaped by his experiences (and in some cases lack thereof) and it seemed as if he might have come out of it a better person.

[–] blindvias-071407 10 years ago

My take-away about Christian vs. Gay thing that you found bothersome is totally different. My understanding was that the movie shows those who use Christianity to cover up their prejudice are still bigots, whereas true Christians like Martha and Paul are likely not bigots.

I also don't see this as a movie showing a Yale grad is a the good guy, better than the bus crowd, and the Oregon folks. In order to be true to D. Sedaris, wouldn't you expect that David would experience a string of quirky if not bizarre personal interactions and relationships, from Jennifer all the way to Jon? I saw the movie as very successful in that regard.

As far as judging people, it was Jennifer that called the people trash, not David. David decided to stay on, and even proved himself to Hobbs by lugging that full tank back from town. David tried to fit in and make friends, even though he was terrible at it.

The movie showed that the immigrant workers and Martha and Paul (the Christian couple) were decent, worthy people. Martha and Paul went out of their way to offer Jon a place, even though he had slim prospects. Oregon clocks? He was a loser yet they gave him a place. Nevertheless, even Jon and Curly had their good points. Curly took good care of his kooky Mom. Jon served in Desert Storm and overcame alcoholism, now managing the best he can. Life is a challenge for everyone.

Clearly I liked this movie a lot more than you did. I though Jonathan Groff and Denis O'Hare were outstanding.