CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › The Chewers Catch-All › The Spike Marshall Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Spike Marshall Thread - Page 3

post #101 of 117
3/26/10 at 7:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
But, long as you're on the topic, next time you watch Straw Dogs - how about if you understand the basic conceit of the film? That Hoffman is not the hero. That's been misinterpreted for years. The fact that you get a "rush" out of violent catharsis or, alternatively, are disgusted by what you're seeing on screen and the way it's presented - is part of the point.
What is your basis for this reading? Everything in the film and Peckinpah's own comments point to Hoffman as the intended protagonist; even if he is not a "hero" in the traditional sense we as viewers are clearly meant to feel disgust at his intellectual limp-wristedness and cheer his transformation into hyper-masculine conqueror. If not, what is the point of the film? A defense of reactionism and lynch mobs? Any way you interpret the film, it exists in Peckinpah's singularly man-boy fascist machismo universe and is morally indefensible on any level.
Reply
post #102 of 117
3/26/10 at 11:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
What is your basis for this reading? Everything in the film and Peckinpah's own comments point to Hoffman as the intended protagonist; even if he is not a "hero" in the traditional sense we as viewers are clearly meant to feel disgust at his intellectual limp-wristedness and cheer his transformation into hyper-masculine conqueror. If not, what is the point of the film? A defense of reactionism and lynch mobs? Any way you interpret the film, it exists in Peckinpah's singularly man-boy fascist machismo universe and is morally indefensible on any level.
Just about everything in this post is wrong.

Travis Bickle is the protagonist of Taxi Driver. That doesn't mean we're supposed to be happy about where his journey takes him.
Reply
post #103 of 117
3/26/10 at 11:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
I think you should take BB up on his offer. Despite some genuine howlers, there is some pretty great discussion in that thread... The concept of "outgrowing" Aliens still comes off as pompous. But interesting things are definitely said.
Seconded. Despite some flaring tempers from people who had clearly never considered the possibility that not everyone loves that movie, there's some great cinematic discussion there.
Reply
post #104 of 117
3/27/10 at 12:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
Seconded. Despite some flaring tempers from people who had clearly never considered the possibility that not everyone loves that movie, there's some great cinematic discussion there.
I love your pitch to A&P in that thread. Still one of my favourite exchanges ever.
Reply
post #105 of 117
3/27/10 at 1:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
What is your basis for this reading? Everything in the film and Peckinpah's own comments point to Hoffman as the intended protagonist; even if he is not a "hero" in the traditional sense we as viewers are clearly meant to feel disgust at his intellectual limp-wristedness and cheer his transformation into hyper-masculine conqueror. If not, what is the point of the film? A defense of reactionism and lynch mobs? Any way you interpret the film, it exists in Peckinpah's singularly man-boy fascist machismo universe and is morally indefensible on any level.
If you actually give a shit I recommend the Criterion Commentary as a quick lesson in reading that film. I have a feeling you've made up your mind, and have no intention in seeing the other 'intended' side of the argument, but I figure it's worth a try.
Reply
post #106 of 117
3/27/10 at 1:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
What is your basis for this reading? Everything in the film and Peckinpah's own comments point to Hoffman as the intended protagonist; even if he is not a "hero" in the traditional sense we as viewers are clearly meant to feel disgust at his intellectual limp-wristedness and cheer his transformation into hyper-masculine conqueror. If not, what is the point of the film? A defense of reactionism and lynch mobs? Any way you interpret the film, it exists in Peckinpah's singularly man-boy fascist machismo universe and is morally indefensible on any level.
What?

....

*scratches head*

Okay. You did understand just what an oppressive marriage Susan George is in, right? What a fucking asshole Hoffman really is... How he doesn't really give a shit about her beyond her attributes as a trophy wife.

How she has to find comfort in.....

.....oh, what's the use?

Yeah, follow Gabe's advice.
Reply
post #107 of 117
3/27/10 at 2:09am
Yeah, it is pretty cool seeing Hoffman beat those thugs, but as Greg and Erix already said, the "Protagonist" is not always the "good" guy.

Thus the final lines:

Henry Niles: I don't know my way home.
David Sumner: That's okay. I don't either.
Reply
post #108 of 117
3/28/10 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
What?

....

*scratches head*

Okay. You did understand just what an oppressive marriage Susan George is in, right? What a fucking asshole Hoffman really is... How he doesn't really give a shit about her beyond her attributes as a trophy wife.

How she has to find comfort in.....

.....oh, what's the use?

Yeah, follow Gabe's advice.
You're agreeing with me. Peckinpah sets up Hoffman's character as a limp ineffectual egghead (so sexually inert his wife has to turn to being raped to satisfy her sexual needs), and it is only when he is reborn through violence that he can make a claim of ownership towards his house and woman (the sign of a "real man"). The film basks in the myth of violence as a cleansing, "maturing" force that all "real men" must partake in to prove their stripes and maintain dominance over their mates and potential usurpers. It's okay to like the film regardless, but stop trying to skirt around the fact that Peckinpah was a misogynist Randian. That is unarguable.
Reply
post #109 of 117
3/28/10 at 5:29pm
The word is "inarguable". And what is inarguable is that you're a blockhead who is misreading the entire point of view of the film. You're not supposed to approve of his journey. It's a statement on male territoriality, and not a positive one. It sounds to me like this is a problem on your end, not Peckinpah's.
Reply
post #110 of 117
3/28/10 at 7:39pm
God damn it, am I going to have to eventually put all Choculas new board personas on ignore?
Reply
post #111 of 117
3/28/10 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
Peckinpah sets up Hoffman's character as a limp ineffectual egghead (so sexually inert his wife has to turn to being raped to satisfy her sexual needs), and it is only when he is reborn through violence that he can make a claim of ownership towards his house and woman (the sign of a "real man"). The film basks in the myth of violence as a cleansing, "maturing" force that all "real men" must partake in to prove their stripes and maintain dominance over their mates and potential usurpers.
David Sumner is set up as someone who doesn't have passion for his wife. And her ex-boyfriend does... So the reason she ultimately enjoys the rape is because here's a guy who knows how to fuck her. But it's not necessarily that David is limp. It's that he doesn't care about pleasing her or giving her any comfort. There is something very poignant about the fact that a rape gives way to genuine passion on her part. The fact she has to give in to rape in order to find sexual comfort is not supposed to be a good thing.

And, like Greg said, you may cheer at Hoffman turning the tables on the house's attackers... But you do so only out of a visceral reaction. Ultimately Peckinpah is making a point about how tragic it is that real men have to be territorial and aggressive in order to be real men.

You think Fight Club is an aggressive and fascist male fantasy too, right?

Oh... This thing got derailed, didn't it?
Reply
post #112 of 117
3/28/10 at 8:32pm
Man, for as much as Spike and I can bash each other's balls I do commend him for not taking the bait in this thread.
Reply
post #113 of 117
3/28/10 at 8:35pm
They call that the MOLTISANTI METHOD.
Reply
post #114 of 117
3/28/10 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erix View Post
David Sumner is set up as someone who doesn't have passion for his wife. And her ex-boyfriend does... So the reason she ultimately enjoys the rape is because here's a guy who knows how to fuck her. But it's not necessarily that David is limp. It's that he doesn't care about pleasing her or giving her any comfort. There is something very poignant about the fact that a rape gives way to genuine passion on her part. The fact she has to give in to rape in order to find sexual comfort is not supposed to be a good thing.
The idea of a woman taking pleasure in being raped because her husband is an emotionally distant limpdick is a deeply misogynistic fantasy, and frankly it's a little bit disturbing that you're giving it value beyond the twisted ramblings of a hateful alcoholic. This is the problem with canonization; once a film is labeled a "classic" people refuse to think critically about it and have to jump through ridiculous mental hoops to justify it's status.
Reply
post #115 of 117
3/28/10 at 11:16pm
Do you think there's some kind of time clock, where if a film passes a certain year mark, it makes the "classic" roll? It didn't become labeled as a classic out of the clear blue sky, for no reason. It made its reputation by provoking thought about the themes that you refuse to acknowledge are there.

If you're too fallow to appreciate a film beyond the surface level of what it appears to be about, that's on you. Don't blame the film for not coming down to your level. Stick to Wayans comedies, enjoy Twilight, and have fun posting on the IMDB forums.
Reply
post #116 of 117
3/28/10 at 11:24pm
I'm all for derailing this silly Spike pile-on, but shouldn't this discussion be continued in HERE?
Reply
post #117 of 117
3/28/10 at 11:32pm
It should probably be continued in a special class with blocks and early learning toys.

But yeah, not here.

Sorry.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Chewers Catch-All
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE CHEWERS › The Chewers Catch-All › The Spike Marshall Thread