Politics in Media - The Good, the Bad, and the Preachy

Haven't seen it myself, but it feels a bit cowardly to have a war movie like that, but forego to mention what the war is even being fought over. Far as anyone knows, it is entirely about the president being a corrupt asshole.

I've not seen it so can't judge for this specific film, but couldn't it be argued that there's actually a benefit to making the cause of a war ambiguous if you're doing a war is hell narrative? It exemplifies that it doesn't matter who is fighting the war, why it is being fought or which side (if any) is (more) right, war is awful for most involved, especially those caught in the middle. So, for this film, it would depend on what it's trying to do. If it's trying to comment on the nature of politics in America, then yes, making the war unlikely/ambiguous hurts that. If it's just about the concept of war itself (specifically civil war and the way that it tears a country and its people apart), then an unlikely/ambiguous war actually helps that.

"Civil wars don't just happen; there's always a political reason behind them." Oh, certainly. I just think that there could be worth in a story where the purpose/causes of the war don't matter and are even left ambiguous. Maybe a story specific about a second Civil War in America, which feels like it is commenting on the increasing polarisation without actually commenting on it, isn't the way to do it (though like I said, haven't watched it so it's not fair for me to judge). I just think a good story with a good exploration of war could be made without an explanation of how the war happened.

Edited by king15 on Apr 13th 2024 at 1:32:17 PM

Not really, considering this movie is specifically about a civil war in America.

Civil wars don't just happen; there's always a political reason behind them.

I would say that in the current day, the concept is a bit tone-deaf, particularly if you're trying to be apolitical.

From an interview with the director:

Having seen the movie, I do feel that a strong political stance would have totally undermined the narrative it was presenting, which is largely unrelated to any specific current-day political concerns.

Edited by archonspeaks on Apr 13th 2024 at 11:08:23 AM

The problem is, that with political situation right now, being centrist does make your stance more shallow in mane eyes.

Wuth how X-Men goes, humans can't coexist with mutants, so yeah, franchise does kinda seem to argue for segregation. Wheither it's good or not is depending on the viewer, considering that humans (from major characters to minor characters and background crowd) are pure evil bigots, which kinda justifies Magneto and mutants needing to live separately from humans.

Which reminds me of this video:

At 36:05 time mark the point he makes is kinda disjointed, but i let everyone else decide if the video is correct or not, since i don't feel qualified to claim for sure if the message is correct or not.

Edited by VeryVileVillian on Apr 14th 2024 at 12:33:40 PM

Describing this movie as “centrist” feels like a statement so reductive as to be essentially meaningless. For what it’s worth, the movie seems to go out of its way to specifically defy political categorization.

More than that, does every work of art necessarily need to conform to some political objective?

Slightly unrelated, but all that mentions of centrists reminded me of how there's an actual faction in Star Wars named centrists that go "But what about the GOOD things Palpatine and the Empire did for the galaxy?"

Some deep satire there. Granted, all those politicians who are centrists use code and dogwhistles to hide the fact they fully support the Empire and were the origins of the First Order, so I guess not really centrists?

That's always such a stupid view.

"What about Hitler's reduction of unemployment?" "Yes, but he killed millions of people"

"What about his help of Germany out of the Great Depression?" "Yes, but he killed millions of people"

"What about his strengthening of Germany?" "Yes, but he killed millions of people."

Besides, all the good Hitler did means fuck all given his actions started a war that Germany lost and many of the gains he mad were reversed over the course of that war. So you can't even argue that he was 'competent'. For the Star Wars example, maybe the Empire had a better tax system or a nicer economy or whatever, but they also blew up several planets (one of which was a major population centre and presumably very important economically). Even the supposed 'benefits' of fascism like increased order clearly haven't occurred in the Empire given the continuation of crime syndicates like the Huts and even the Empire's decision to use Bounty Hunters.

Devil's advocate doesn't work when you're thinking about people like Hitler or Palpatine. I'm not saying you should never consider the good things they did in their reign, certainly, it is good to have a thorough understanding (of the former, the latter is fictional so doesn't really matter). But it's so stupid to act as if it's even possible to have a balanced view on these people, the negatives monumentally outweigh the positives. You wouldn't say: "What about the positives of this serial killer? He did give to charity and was quite friendly to his neighbour." That's not dissimilar to the logic being used for Palpatine or, by many people, for Hitler.

Edited by king15 on Apr 14th 2024 at 10:30:18 AM

Not really, but considering how the situation is going now, where some states like Texas threatened Civil War in real life and far right movement being on the rise again, having a movie centered around Civil War (where Texas is one of the participants) and not making a comment towards far right movements or far left movements does kinda feels like the director was doing this on purpose to avoid angering or even offending either of the sides and decided to play it safe.

Especially when the reason for Civil War in the movie is left unclear.

Some people don't really care about millions of people, if none of those millions were their friends or loved ones. Some people love "Hard men making hard choices" thing so much, that they actively advocate for murder of millions, if they believe that this will make their own problems go away.

Edited by VeryVileVillian on Apr 14th 2024 at 1:35:43 PM

It may be a stupid view, but it's one that echoes real life.

Claims that Mussolini "made the trains run on time" have been circulating for a century. It's not even true, but the argument that fascism provides stability, efficiency and certainty via its "strong leadership" keeps coming back, and has always been part of its sales pitch.

Yeah, that's why if fiction is going to critique Fascism, it's important to actually destroy the illusion that it's in any way efficient for the people.

I'd like to bring up Secret Empire as something that tries to critique Fascism but with the idea that Captain Stevil's regime is somehow making the country stronger, keeping up employment, and ensuring that standardized test results are at a all time high.

Yeah a lot of people take the claims of such regimes at face value, you know what big thing Hitler did in relation to employment in Germany? He massively increased it by forcing anyone deemed ‘undesirable’ out of work and their businesses. Hitler destroyed many German small businesses, it’s just that they were Jewish businesses so he saw it as a good thing.

I think it's also partially born out of naivety and incomprehension. Many people simply can't comprehend why so many people would willingly throw their lot in with such hateful and destructive regimes. So they're more likely to buy into their propaganda about their efficiency since it does make senses to them that people would follow fascists if it gave them some kind of benefit.

That's part of what makes Andor great. We've already seen how evil the Empire is (which should frankly be enough for anyone to hate them, alas, this is not so), but this show showed how incompetent, unfair and miserable life in the Empire is. The Empire from the films is like Voldemort, sinister, evil and clearly morally disgusting, but Andor Empire is like Umbridge, genuinely hateable. Part of that is because it feels more relatable in a way, thankfully I imagine most viewers of the show don't live in dictatorships, but those little scenes of incompetence and lives being ruined over nothing (I can't imagine a scene I find more disgusting and annoying then when Cassian is arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, nothing else) is something most people can at least imagine. A New Hope showed that the Empire is evil, but Andor proved it is both incompetent and evil in a way that's more quantifiable for the average viewer.

Edited by king15 on Apr 14th 2024 at 11:38:46 AM

Every regime will have a percentage of people who benefit from it.

In Palpatine's case, if you are human, wealthy, a non-Force User, and live in Coruscate, or if you are a military hawk, or if you're a weapon manufacturer, or a member of some organized crime cartel, then you will probably like the Empire.

So in-universe there is a sense of some people missing the Empire, if their interests don't align with the New/Old Republic.

......................

It is Real Life fans, who have no stake in the situation and yet say, " well, destroying Alderan may not have been nice, but is the Empire really that evil? What about when Luke killed millions on the Death Star? He is the greatest mass murderer in the galaxy, and no one mentions it. DOUBLE STANDARDS"

Those types are the ones who can be annoying.

How would a political stance have improved a story about journalistic ethics and the horror and uncertainty of a nation violently splintering apart? It’s also worth noting that Texas is fighting this conflict on the same side as California, against a fascist three-term president.

As for the director not wanting to anger anyone, aside from multiple interviews with him stating that he does in fact want to anger people, doesn’t a movie about a present-day civil war in the US seem like an odd directorial choice for someone who doesn’t want people angry at them? I think the very premise alone shows that people’s anger was never a primary concern.

Honestly, the idea of Texas and California allying in a war of secession is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That alone makes the movie impossible to believe.

the currently underground Return To Mexico Movement

I did not watch the movie, but from the interview that @ archonspeaks posted above (post 53205), it seems that the director wanted to say that polarization, if not stopped, will have catastrophic results, and if civil war breaks out, then it will be terrible for America.

If so, asking for him to "pick sides" is missing the point.

................

Also, while I can't see the future, I feel that a second civil war, is a far-fetched scenario, despite all the rhetoric.

The reason I see a second American Civil War as unlikely is that the ratio of violent fuckwits to the general population is immensely lower today than it was in the 1860s.

Specifically, the South engaged in massive conscription, calling up all of its gentrified landowners to send their sons into war. No such thing as the National Guard existed at the time. While there are no doubt a number of militia groups who would jump at the opportunity to shoot at the feds (at least until the feds shoot back; they are notorious cowards), there is simply not enough ready manpower in red states to overthrow federal forces.

The general military is meticulously and intensely conditioned to be loyal to the country, not to individual states. While some individuals or units might rebel, the vast majority would suppress them in less time than it would take the news to report on the abortive revolution.

A dumb question from me, if people are meant to take from the film that civil wars are bad and the hatred that leads to them is to be avoided, don’t they need the film to show them what that looks like?

A cautionary tale about how the path America is on leads to civil war makes sense, but for it to work we kinda need to see that journey, not just the final end-state.

the journey wouldn't sell half as many tickets and seats the exciting BOOM of the civil war itself,thats what people want to see

Plus the director is putting on the front of being apolitical to be PR friendly I guess.

It mildly concerns me that someone thinks that "civil wars are bad, yo" is a message that (a) needs to be delivered to the average moviegoer, (b) would work on the people who actually do need it.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 14th 2024 at 11:47:45 AM