Mad Max: Fury Road - Part 6

[4thWallBreaker]

Do you read your own post? If you are going to continue to sound like you live in a bunker waiting for the end times and attend Trump rallies, don't be upset when people point it out.

The feminist message came organically through the actual creation of the film. That is the exact reason why Furiosa was created, and then Miller brought on Eve Ensler in to consult the cast. By the way, the "feminist label" came before the movie was released, and was heavily talked about in the reviews.

There you go with presumptions again. Ah, feminists. Now I'm a fan of the clown Trump. Ok.

I, and other posters you're ignoring, read the article and know that it was a tag that came later. Just stop it. I'm not gonna ask for a citing of said reviews you're talking about. But aren't reviews, you know, something that come after seeing the movie? Do you read your own posts?

I'm done. You can rebuke and have the last word. I'm sure it'll be another mudsling. You've already implied I'm a misogynist, compared me to drop-of-the-hat racists, and now I'll hate puppies or something next, right? You have no argument when you insult and repeat conjecture with no backup.

Have a goodie.

 

[jmc]

And why is that?

Because maybe he just liked the idea. Crazy notion that maybe he just like the idea, right?

You seem to think that the story itself being served means that feminism can't be served. That is clearly false. The very nature of the story is based in feminism ideas. Carol is a brilliant film and story. It is also clearly a film about LGBT life. The two things are not mutually exclusive, in fact rarely ever are.

The issue is intent. Did Miller intend to make some sort of statement or did he intend to make a story about women? The answer is the latter. Any feminist ideology is being interpreted after the fact. This film isn't about feminism, every film that has a strong female lead or be female centric can't automatically be slapped with that tag, it's a disservice to the story and to the creator telling him/her their story is about 'this', when they are saying it's about 'that'. If Miller says he never intended to be any sort of underlying message then that is frankly where the discussion ends. Sometimes a story is simply just that - a story.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There you go with presumptions again. Ah, feminists. Now I'm a fan of the clown Trump. Ok.

I, and other posters you're ignoring, read the article and know that it was a tag that came later. Just stop it. I'm not gonna ask for a citing of said reviews you're talking about. But aren't reviews, you know, something that come after seeing the movie? Do you read your own posts?

I'm done. You can rebuke and have the last word. I'm sure it'll be another mudsling. You've already implied I'm a misogynist, compared me to drop-of-the-hat racists, and now I'll hate puppies or something next, right? You have no argument when you insult and repeat conjecture with no backup.

Have a goodie.

And others have already pointed out that is wrong, using actual material from the film and director. I am just not as laid back as Sawyer and Black Narcissus.

And when the shoe fits, the shoe fits. Your little rants paint quite the picture.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Because maybe he just liked the idea. Crazy notion that maybe he just like the idea, right?



The issue is intent. Did Miller intend to make some sort of statement or did he intend to make a story about women? The answer is the latter. Any feminist ideology is being interpreted after the fact. This film isn't about feminism, every film that has a strong female lead or be female centric can't automatically be slapped with that tag, it's a disservice to the story and to the creator telling him/her their story is about 'this', when they are saying it's about 'that'. If Miller says he never intended to be any sort of underlying message then that is frankly where the discussion ends. Sometimes a story is simply just that - a story.

Intent is irrelevant. That is like saying a movie can't be racist or sexist because it wasn't intended to. That is clearly not true.

The story plays out in the manner that it does. You can choose to ignore all the clear signs, but that is being blind to be blind. And there is no disservice in anyway by labeling something a feminist film. What is wrong with that?

Also, did you read the articles? Read the quotes?

“I’ve gone from being very male dominant to being surrounded by magnificent women. I can’t help but be a feminist,” says George Miller.

Miller has been many things in his life—a doctor, then a visionary action film director, then a director of an animated franchise about tap-dancing penguins—but “feminist icon” may be a role the 70-year-old filmmaker never expected. And yet, many of the rapturous reactions to his new film, Mad Max; Fury Road, have focused on the dominant role of women in the film, from the fearless Imperator Furiosa played by Charlize Theron to the well-drawn, fascinating quintet of kidnapped wives whom Furiosa spends the film spiriting to safety.

Women had a major impact behind the scenes, too; Miller’s wife, Margaret Sixel, edited the film—“I said, ‘You have to edit this movie, because it won’t look like every other action movie,” Miller recalls. And after hearing her speak on Australian radio, Miller invited famed feminist activist Eve Ensler to visit the set in Namibia to lead a workshop for the actresses who played the wives, to give “perspective on violence against women around the world, particularly in war zones,” in Ensler’s words. “Even though it’s a helter-skelter action movie you have to really prepare the world as much as possible,” Miller explains, adding that Ensler wound up including members of the crew in the workshops as well.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road-george-miller-interview

"Initially, there wasn’t a feminist agenda," Miller insisted. Instead, the movie was simply designed to be an extended chase, and "the thing that people were chasing was to be not an object, but the five wives. I needed a warrior. But it couldn’t be a man taking five wives from another man. That’s an entirely different story. So everything grew out of that."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cannes-2015-mad-maxs-tom-795589

Why does he say intially it wasn't that? Because that is what it became. It is right there, right there. From the director. He hired a well known feminist to work on the film because of it. Why are you ignoring this if the director's word is final?

 

[jmc]

He says nothing about it being a statement for feminism.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He says nothing about it being a statement for feminism.

Mad Max: Fury Road was hailed as a feminist powerhouse. Was this intentional?

It wasn’t a conscious feminist thing. The basic idea was this would be continuous chase. The Five Wives, fleeing the Warlord, needed a road warrior. If that character was male, it’s a different story. She needed to be female. You see, I’m from a very male background – I had brothers but no sisters, I went to all-boys schools, I went to medical school when there weren’t many women studying medicine. But now I have a very strong daughter, a magnificent strong wife [Margaret Sixel] who edited the movie. I think that seeps into you subconsciously and ends up in your stories.

Were you surprised by this reaction?

No. These films are allegorical; they are in the eyes of the beholder. It’s like song lyrics, where we often interpret them according to our own worldview. There were people saying that this was how it should be, others that were offended. And everyone’s interpretation is legitimate. That’s the reason we tell stories.

You brought author and feminist activist Eve Ensler on board to advise the actresses

There was a strong military presence but when we got to the Five Wives we had to find an equivalent. By luck, Eve just happened to be in Africa and was prepared to give us a week. She ran workshops on everything from human trafficking to the history of male domination of women.

http://www.bigissue.com/features/in...feminist-inspiration-behind-mad-max-fury-road

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Does it matter if Miller intended to make a statement or not? Art can be interpreted without authorial intent.

 

[jmc]

http://www.bigissue.com/features/in...feminist-inspiration-behind-mad-max-fury-road

Again, he doesn't say it was intended as a feminist statement.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Does it matter if Miller intended to make a statement or not? Art can be interpreted without authorial intent.

Literally what Miller says in those quotes. So Miller agrees with you.

Again, he doesn't say it was intended as a feminist statement.

You can't be serious. You are purposely ignoring what is written because you don't want to admit you were wrong on this one.

 

[jmc]

You can't be serious. You are purposely ignoring what is written because you don't want to admit you were wrong on this one.

I want to see these exact words from Miller - 'Yes, I intended for this film to be about feminism'. I will gladly admit being wrong if you can find a statement with him actually confirming that was his intention. Not something that can be interpreted differently or taken out of context, an actual statement from him declaring that was his intention with the film.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I want to see these exact words from Miller - 'Yes, I intended for this film to be about feminism'. I will gladly admit being wrong if you can find a statement with him actually confirming that was his intention. Not something that can be interpreted differently or taken out of context, an actual statement from him declaring that was his intention with the film.

So when Miller says it subconsciously got in there do to his current place in life, that means nothing?

 

[redhawk23]

Because maybe he just liked the idea. Crazy notion that maybe he just like the idea, right?



The issue is intent. Did Miller intend to make some sort of statement or did he intend to make a story about women? The answer is the latter. Any feminist ideology is being interpreted after the fact. This film isn't about feminism, every film that has a strong female lead or be female centric can't automatically be slapped with that tag, it's a disservice to the story and to the creator telling him/her their story is about 'this', when they are saying it's about 'that'. If Miller says he never intended to be any sort of underlying message then that is frankly where the discussion ends. Sometimes a story is simply just that - a story.

Even if Miller tried to claim he never had any intended message, he would pretty much be outright lying. The feminist themes in the film are not just subtext, they are the text, often literal text scrawled across the walls.

"Who Killed The World?"
"We Are Not Things."

The film is not subtle.

 

[redhawk23]

I want to see these exact words from Miller - 'Yes, I intended for this film to be about feminism'. I will gladly admit being wrong if you can find a statement with him actually confirming that was his intention. Not something that can be interpreted differently or taken out of context, an actual statement from him declaring that was his intention with the film.

Miller made his 150 million dollar statement.

Don't be obtuse.

 

[jmc]

Still waiting for that quote.

 

[redhawk23]

But what would that prove that the film itself does not?

The movie is very blunt in its themes. Again, these concepts are not subtext. They aren't being grafted on in interpretation. Saying the film is "feminist" is hardly different from saying that its an "action film" or is post-apocalyptic.

Its not just about having women in active roles, it is about the ideas the film itself invoke and explores. In a movie with such sparse dialogue, much of it is directly questioning patriarchal systems, the usefulness of violence and the need to find another way to operate society.

The Doof Warrior's power chords are more subtle.

 

[redhawk23]

jmc, honest question, in your view, what are the main thematic points of Fury Road?

 

[jmc]

If you want my honest opinion I don't think it has any greater meaning, I think sometimes an action film is simply that - an action film. I watch that film for the operatic action spectacle that it is, not for any deep thematic subtext or some form of social commentary. It has some great character moments but it's not a character driven film, at it's core this film is simply about the chase first and foremost.

 

[antonydelfini]

If you want my honest opinion I don't think it has any greater meaning, I think sometimes an action film is simply that - an action film. I watch that film for the operatic action spectacle that it is, not for any deep thematic subtext or some form of social commentary. It has some great character moments but it's not a character driven film, at it's core this film is simply about the chase first and foremost.

So I get that you watch the film for its action and not for any theme or social commentary, but do you think there are themes and social commentary in the film? Cause if I understand your first sentence, it seems like you do not see any theme or social commentary in the movie. If that is the case, I will find it hard to believe that that is an honest opinion. I actually thought Miller could have been more subtle presenting his themes but I still love the move (9/10 score from me).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So I get that you watch the film for its action and not for any theme or social commentary, but do you think there are themes and social commentary in the film? Cause if I understand your first sentence, it seems like you do not see any theme or social commentary in the movie. If that is the case, I will find it hard to believe that that is an honest opinion. I actually thought Miller could have been more subtle presenting his themes but I still love the move (9/10 score from me).

Plenty subtle.

 

[jmc]

So I get that you watch the film for its action and not for any theme or social commentary, but do you think there are themes and social commentary in the film? Cause if I understand your first sentence, it seems like you do not see any theme or social commentary in the movie. If that is the case, I will find it hard to believe that that is an honest opinion. I actually thought Miller could have been more subtle presenting his themes but I still love the move (9/10 score from me).

Of course there are themes, I'm not going to say the film is devoid of substance, but they are not the primary driving force of the movie nor are they the focus. If Miller wanted to genuinely make a commentary said themes would have been the focus of the film. But the film is not concerned with any of that, the film is first and foremost about being a visual spectacle and tells its story in an almost dance like way. And you can believe whatever you choose to believe, like an howl with laryngitis I couldn't give two hoots.

 

[Victarion]

If you want my honest opinion I don't think it has any greater meaning, I think sometimes an action film is simply that - an action film. I watch that film for the operatic action spectacle that it is, not for any deep thematic subtext or some form of social commentary. It has some great character moments but it's not a character driven film, at it's core this film is simply about the chase first and foremost.

Chases don't start on their own. It takes characters to get them going.

 

[redhawk23]

If you want my honest opinion I don't think it has any greater meaning, I think sometimes an action film is simply that - an action film. I watch that film for the operatic action spectacle that it is, not for any deep thematic subtext or some form of social commentary. It has some great character moments but it's not a character driven film, at it's core this film is simply about the chase first and foremost.

Okay but what I'm not talking about deep social commentary. I'm talking about slogans that are literally painted in giant letters across the screen.

You are going beyond simply not digging into subtext and out right ignoring the most surface level aspects of the text.

 

[redhawk23]

Of course there are themes, I'm not going to say the film is devoid of substance, but they are not the primary driving force of the movie nor are they the focus. If Miller wanted to genuinely make a commentary said themes would have been the focus of the film. But the film is not concerned with any of that, the film is first and foremost about being a visual spectacle and tells its story in an almost dance like way. And you can believe whatever you choose to believe, like an howl with laryngitis I couldn't give two hoots.

So do you ignore the films characters too since for you nothing in the film is important except the spectacle?

As for the themes he literally spelled them out in giant white letters. He devotes much of the limited dialogue to blunt statements and discussions of these themes.

The film's criticisms of violent, patriarchal systems go beyond just the obvious slogans and discussions and are rooted in the characterizations and the visuals. The thematic points of the film are integral to it. Fury Road succeeds because it delivers this information just as it does its characters and plots, in a distinctly visual way. Themes need not be delivered only in the form of courtroom monologues. This film delivers its themes through the action and spectacle and character design.


Not to accuse you of anything jmc but it really seems like you have a very negative misunderstanding of what feminism is and are actively trying to distance the film from it.

So to clear things up...

 

[Black Narcissus]

Tarantino knows:

[YT]datA4UHu374[/YT]

 

[StarLord]

#NotMyMax