|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Them taking over the citadel made perfect sense to me.
Furiosa was already high up in their government/military as an Imperator and they were a warrior culture who believed in Valhalla and virtue inherent in war and military prowess.
With nobody else around to take charge, why wouldn't they simply give over to a victorious general who they knew to be a good leader having already followed her? By their lights, she's proven her right to rule them by slaying their previous leader, after all.
|
|
Yeah, everybody just seemed like they were, 'whatever'. Why couldn't the bad guys just have waited it out for the rest of the war party to return? They have all the water and an incredibly defensible position that can only be reached by an elevator they control.
With nobody else around to take charge, why wouldn't they simply give over to a victorious general who they knew to be a good leader having already followed her?
They had no way of knowing that Rictus wasn't on his way back.
|
|
Yeah, everybody just seemed like they were, 'whatever'. Why couldn't the bad guys just have waited it out for the rest of the war party to return? They have all the water and an incredibly defensible position that can only be reached by an elevator they control.
The military establishment were pretty clearly planning on doing just that. Then the 'war-pups' (ie: kids) dropped the elevator and the people ripped them apart.
They had no way of knowing that Rictus wasn't on his way back.
Nah, she killed Immortan Joe. She basically killed God, at least in the minds of the kids and common folk. Nobody can stand against the person who can do that, so it didn't matter if Rictus was on the way back.
In short, she had moral/religious authority and charisma, she didn't need ironclad logic...that's not how people pick their leaders.
|
|
Well, that also wasn't their original plan. The original plan was to come in with Nux and play it as him having successfully completed his mission to bring the women back. Then they'd take things over when it became clear Joe wasn't coming.
Which was more of a 'sure thing' plan...but didn't quite work out in practice for several reasons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
She didn't just kill Immortan Joe. She humiliated him by stealing his wives, defeating 3 war parties, then driving back in his car. She didn't just kill god. She destroyed him.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just remembered something that bothered me about the movie and which I was wondering about. During several action scenes, and most notably the opening scene of the movie, it felt as if I was watching sped-up footage. As if they were playing the movie faster than it should be.
Anyone else noticed that? Was that some sort of stylistic choice I did not understand?
I haven't seen Fury Road yet, but it sounds like you are describing "undercranking", which Miller used in The Road Warrior (and possibly the original Mad Max; I'm not sure, it has been years since I've seen it). It is likely a deliberate call-back or style choice on Miller's part.
|
It was done a ton on Mad Max, so much to the point that some of the car wrecks looked cartoony. It was a wildly popular cinema technique in car chases in the 70's. Watch some 007 movies from the later Connery Era and the Moore Era and you'll see the speed up scenes for the vehicle exterior chase shots.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I am apparantly some sort of an intellectual masochist, I found myself in the midst of the discussion regarding sexism and Fury Road.
I stumbled upon this Youtube video which, despite my suspisicon that I would be at odds with the speaker about many things, has managed to convey my feelings on the subject with remarkable accuracy.
Main points:
1) Seems that portraying that one article by that one dude as "Men's Rights Activists rage" was factually incorrect. He has officially and previously distanced himself from the movement usually called MRA and its ideals. Is he b@%*&~$ crazy and has deplorable views on many subjects? many including me would say yes, but that is no accuse to make him into a straw man for a group he does not even have any real ties to.
2) The movie is not feminist, and (obviously) does not disguise itself as a "boy's movie" while actually being gender propaganda. It is an awesome action movie with male and female characters who are equal to each other. Max and Furiosa like and respect each other, the wives are victims of Immorten Joe every bit as much as the warboys are, and the maternal society Furiosa came from seems to be a gang like any other.
3) Finally, there's the criticism that I harbor against liberal news and discussions on the internet - it is acting like an echo chamber with as little introspection and critical thought as it likes to attribute its natural political opposition with. That frustrates me because I am supposedly sharing a world view with these people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is an awesome action movie with male and female characters who are equal to each other.
I think that puts it into a very small class of movies. So much so, that it rocks the boat of current perceptions. It is unusual, if not unique.
As for point 3, I think the internet forces itself into small "cliques" because decent debate generally requires heavy moderation, which is at odds with the all-anonymous-voices-are-equal nature of life online. I also would separate "corporate liberal" from "peoples liberal" sites online as they frequently have VERY opposite agendas. For good debates, I would check out the Doha Debates on Al Jazeera. It is amazing what a real debate is like when you are used to the "debates" and reporting on almost all major media.
EDIT: Where are you again Lord Snow?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by the point I made earlier. By standing apart from the mainstream and including great characters, both man and woman, it is feminist. That's the goal feminism is working for. Equal representation. It doesn't need to be a dissertation on gender roles.
I stand by the point I made earlier. By standing apart from the mainstream and including great characters, both man and woman, it is feminist. That's the goal feminism is working for. Equal representation. It doesn't need to be a dissertation on gender roles.
define:feminism - "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." By the google dictionary definition of feminism, I would say you are correct. I think many people use different definitions (or a super rigid interpretation of "equality"), and thus have different opinions. I suspect that most "...isms" have a connotation of superiority, and that creates a lot of confusion and misunderstanding.
|
|
I stand by the point I made earlier. By standing apart from the mainstream and including great characters, both man and woman, it is feminist. That's the goal feminism is working for. Equal representation. It doesn't need to be a dissertation on gender roles.
Well, technically correct. I would argue that main stream feminism has been pursuing subtly different goals for a while now - but, let us not get into that. I agree that the movie is a shining example of equal treatment for both men and women and as such should be applauded. Call it feminism or equallism or whatever, that is what I believe should be the ideal and it seems to be the philosophy of the movie on the subject.
I don't want to turn this into a big discussion, but feminism isn't a monolith. It means different things to different people. And to this person (and many others), this movie achieves what we seek as feminists.
|
|
It is an awesome action movie with male and female characters who are equal to each other.I think that puts it into a very small class of movies. So much so, that it rocks the boat of current perceptions. It is unusual, if not unique.
As for point 3, I think the internet forces itself into small "cliques" because decent debate generally requires heavy moderation, which is at odds with the all-anonymous-voices-are-equal nature of life online. I also would separate "corporate liberal" from "peoples liberal" sites online as they frequently have VERY opposite agendas. For good debates, I would check out the Doha Debates on Al Jazeera. It is amazing what a real debate is like when you are used to the "debates" and reporting on almost all major media.
EDIT: Where are you again Lord Snow?
Yes, I have heard from a friend of mine who works in the media that the American Al Jazeera is a young and kicking channel that is actively looking to be accurate, showcase all facets of an issue with a critical look, and focus on important news rather than trivial noise. Those should be the baseline objectives of almost any news program but, of course, they rarely are.
I have yet to check them out, though, since I don't really invest all that much time and energy into international news.If by "where I am" you mean the country I live in, that is Israel.
|
|
I don't want to turn this into a big discussion, but feminism isn't a monolith. It means different things to different people. And to this person (and many others), this movie achieves what we seek as feminists.
I heartily agree both with this statement and with your interpretation of feminism. I only wish that more people shared it - from some inside knowledge I have of academic gender studies I can tell that the mainstream there certainly doesn't, and at least judging by who makes the loudest noise, most feminist movements don't either. I do realize, though, that my knowledge of the subject is far from comprehensive and that judging the spread of an opinion by how loudly it is being shouted is an inherently flawed idea.
So let me retract my earlier statement and offer a new one -
"I wish that feminism and other liberal movements and values that I support would not be hijacked by loud non-thinkers in the same way that opposing political views are - since I like to believe my views come from seriously considering and understanding the relevant issues and this dispels the notion".
Not quite as catchy, I suppose.
Al Jazeera is not above reproach, but they are light years ahead of most mass media news we can get in the US. Most of the major organizations try to be clones of Rupert Murdoch's Fox. Which is some scary garbage. Some of the best news we can get is Democracy Now!, but it is very low budget.
I thought I remember that from your past posts, but I'm always thrown off by the wooly mammoth icon and Snow in your name. Out of curiosity, is there anything in English that you could recommend that would be representative of a common Israeli view of Mad Max? I'm curious because I find the idea of the "Wasteland" or frontier applies differently depending on geographical region.
EDIT: I first saw the film in 2D, then in 3D, and found the 2D a better viewing experience. In 2D I could enjoy the backgrounds and details without the forced focus. Also, the 3D made scenes that were real stunt work look fake because you could tell that they were digitally cut up to create layers. I think I'm done with the current 3D technology, which is nice because it usually means less people in the theater and saves a few bucks.
|
|
Al Jazeera is not above reproach, but they are light years ahead of most mass media news we can get in the US. Most of the major organizations try to be clones of Rupert Murdoch's Fox. Which is some scary garbage. Some of the best news we can get is Democracy Now!, but it is very low budget.
I thought I remember that from your past posts, but I'm always thrown off by the wooly mammoth icon and Snow in your name. Out of curiosity, is there anything in English that you could recommend that would be representative of a common Israeli view of Mad Max? I'm curious because I find the idea of the "Wasteland" or frontier applies differently depending on geographical region.
About the woolly mammoth - we barely have rain in Israel, let alone snow. I love cold (and am infamous for my sleevless shirts and short pants, my eternal attire, a vain attempt to feel less heat than everyone else) and I find snowy regions endearing. Couldn't resist the mammoth icon :)
Here are a few select paragraphs, translated by me, from a well regarded nerd film critic in Israel -
"If you take five fast-and-furious movies and make them collide, and then drop another one from a helicopter into the resulting wreck, filter out anything that isn't blue, orange or a car chase, and then add a flaming electric guitar on top, you get Mad Max: Fury Road...
...Mad Max never stops breaking its own record. Every time you think you've seen the craziest action scene of the year, it is immediately topped by yet another, more extravagant one...
...Max;s name may appear on the poster, but the movie is about Furiosa. She is the one to kickstart the plot of the movie and keep it in motion. And she is a one handed Amazon warrior and the most badass woman this side of Alan Ripley, and possibly on the other side as well...
... This is a movie that knows exactly what it is trying to do, and in that field - crazy motoric action - there is no competition, it is simply the best. If you like action, watch Fury Roard. It is that simple."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about different perception of frontiers and wastelands... could you elaborate?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about different perception of frontiers and wastelands... could you elaborate?
Well, it isn't something I have really figured out myself, but I think it is mostly about isolation and at least a perception of being surrounded by vast areas with no friendly humans. Australia is a pretty extreme example of this, as it has a HUGE area that is fairly hostile to human life. The US once had a massive unexplored area (known as The Frontier or "West") that shaped a survivalist mentality that still exists long ofter the frontier became scenic farmland. Sorry if I'm not explaining it well, but it often promotes mentalities that range from proud self reliance to creepy xenophobia. I imagine that it would be hard for someone who grew up in a densely developed area to relate to. For example, I grew up in the suburbs of New York City, and although there are some fairly large undeveloped areas in New York State, I didn't quite understand isolation until I visited some of the mountains and deserts of the West and Southwest. Places where you could walk for days and days without any sign of other humans. (Note: The Midwest has some vast areas of farm/grazing lands that are very sparsely populated, but that is a different form of isolation...)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about different perception of frontiers and wastelands... could you elaborate?Well, it isn't something I have really figured out myself, but I think it is mostly about isolation and at least a perception of being surrounded by vast areas with no friendly humans. Australia is a pretty extreme example of this, as it has a HUGE area that is fairly hostile to human life. The US once had a massive unexplored area (known as The Frontier or "West") that shaped a survivalist mentality that still exists long ofter the frontier became scenic farmland. Sorry if I'm not explaining it well, but it often promotes mentalities that range from proud self reliance to creepy xenophobia. I imagine that it would be hard for someone who grew up in a densely developed area to relate to. For example, I grew up in the suburbs of New York City, and although there are some fairly large undeveloped areas in New York State, I didn't quite understand isolation until I visited some of the mountains and deserts of the West and Southwest. Places where you could walk for days and days without any sign of other humans. (Note: The Midwest has some vast areas of farm/grazing lands that are very sparsely populated, but that is a different form of isolation...)
Well, Israel is a speck compared to most states in the U.S and despite being densely populated in the not-desert regions, the entire population is less than that of the city of New York.
The country was made less than 80 years ago. My living grandparents were born before it. At the time, the area was not densely populated at all, and the zionist movement has worked arduously to dry swamps, seed plants and make even parts of the desert into highly productive farmland (that effort has consequently revolutionized some centuries old methods in farming the world over - the somewhat predictable result of taking a bunch of generally well educated people and giving them farming work). I have been to the west coast and environs in the U.S and actually consider it to be a very serious contender for most beautiful place on earth (Thailand is giving it a run for its money though, as do the alps). You can drive in a straight line there for distances greater the entire width of Israel.
So in those regards the areas are quite different. Nationalist stories from elementary school tell of the period before 1948 and the U.N officially making Israel a thing, when Zionists had frequent violent confrontations with the local Arabs and more than once with the British colonial government. It's not quite the lawlessness of the wild west, but such things as armed donkey-riding patrols between walled settlements were the norm. The lingering mentality for that time has more to do with the racist concept of Jewish supremacy and some sort of natural not-to-be-questioned ownership of the land, and indeed the need for self reliance sine no other people is all too serious about helping. In a similar process to the one in the U.S, those concepts (on a scale from not so great but understandable at them time to downright monstrous) evolved over time into twisted versions of themselves. I wouldn't call it a frontier feeling, but maybe one of lawlessness nonetheless. I'd say it caused a lean toward more of a tribalism attitude than a loner attitude - an "us against them" thing.
* The whole premise of being able to take and hold the Citadel just because the main force was away was ludicrous.
I was a bit uneasy when they rode into the Citadel to take it over, and it was guarded by hundreds of children who were bred to be unthinkingly loyal to their father...
"So, like, are they just going to slaughter all those kids so they can take over?"
It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me that the younger War Boys just sort of let them ride in with the corpse of their father and set themselves up as leader. But I guess it was either that or pull an Anakin.
They probably view the whole things as the Necromongers would: You keep what you kill.
|
|
So, George Miller has started a rumor that his B&W Directors Cut might see theaters next year. (LINK)
I'm a bit mixed on this. On one hand, a gray scale version would likely be beautiful, but on the other, the colors of Fury Road was a lot of the movie's charm. It would take a lot of post, I imagine, to retain the depth moving to B&W, and I figure since it wasn't B&W from the outset, that the result would be a lesser picture than the masterpiece we saw earlier this year.